Cuss-free blogging

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | 21 Comments

The Blog-O-Cuss Meter - Do you cuss a lot in your blog or website?
Created by OnePlusYou

This entry was posted in Personal. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Cuss-free blogging

  1. OFelixCulpa | Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 1:06 am |

    Les,

    I would be happy to add some cuss words to your blog if you want to improve your averages. I know most all the good ones! :)

  2. John | Monday, April 28, 2008 at 8:21 pm |

    it seems odd that such a thing would exist, but i’m thankful for your result. somewhere in the last couple years it became fashionable for people in ministry, or training for ministry, to use crude language. i’m no sure if they’re trying to be cute, or hip, or more ‘relevant’ but such people seem to have forgotten eph 4:29 was in the bible. (and frankly, i find it irritating). thanks for keeping up the standard, brother!

  3. eutychus | Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 4:10 am |

    John,
    Thanks for dropping by! I found it a little odd, too.

  4. OFelixCulpa | Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 1:49 am |

    Well, Les hasn’t given permission to change his cuss rating, so we can’t actually mention the words which you apparently believe that Paul had in mind when he wrote Eph4.

    The notion that Paul intended to codify a 20th century American list of “forbidden” words (the most notable of which refer mundane things like feces, urine, and sexual relations) seems really odd to me.

    The legalism of the notion is embarrassingly apparent in your comment. Apparently you believe that if someone gets a 0% rating from a silly little widget (the creators themselves warn not to take it too seriously) that he or she has completely obeyed Paul’s exhortation !

    You’ve got to be kidding!

  5. eutychus | Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 9:57 am |

    Kevin,

    Who’d a thunk there would be this much to say about a silly little widget?

    Your and John’s comments have got me thinking…

    (1) As to “legalism.” That’s a term that is used in a variety of ways. Judging from the context, I take it you mean by “legalism” the binding of non-biblical standards on Christians, or do you mean something else?

    (2) I doubt whether John inferred from the widget that I had completely obeyed what Paul commanded. I would think that he inferred from my posting of the widget my intention to avoid crude language, which I think is a fair inference. But perhaps John will come by and speak for himself.

    (3) Is this what Paul had in mind (even in part) in Eph. 4:29? Well, admittedly, not a list of 20th century American terms. But did he mean avoiding crude or filthy language? The ESV renders it “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Paul may be referring more generally to speech that is not edifying, but rather demoralizes believers and/or disrupts relationships. But “crude” language might be included in language which does not edify. Perhaps a better example of an injunction against crude language might be Col. 3:8 “But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander and obscene talk from your mouth.”

    (4) Mere avoidance of using a category of words does not mean that I am avoiding crude or obscene speech. Unfortunately my mind is both corrupted and creative enough for me to think up things that are crude while avoiding such a list of words.

    (5) If Paul is commanding us to avoid crude language, I’m unconvinced that avoiding using certain words constitutes legalism.

    (6) If Paul is commanding us to avoid crude language (let’s stipulate this for the moment) what is this the relation of this command to norms specific to a particular culture, e.g., 20th or 21st century America? In the 1950s, on TV you couldn’t even mention the word pregnant, or show two people in the same bed, like on the old episodes of “I Love Lucy.” Now, there is hardly anything that cannot be said on TV, short of “f-bombs” and the “n-word” (unless you are rapping on one of the music channels). TV may not be the best example, but I think you get what I mean. In the 1950s, the word “pregnant” might not have been acceptable from the pulpit or in “polite” discourse. You’d say “with child” or “in a family way” or something like that. Now, I wouldn’t think twice about using the word in sermon. So is the culture the sole standard for acceptable speech? I can hardly think so. I cannot imagine using an f-bomb from the pulpit, or a lot of other words from the “list.” Nor would I find it to be acceptable to hear such language from the pulpit. John really should speak for himself, but I take him to mean that some Christian pastors have let their standards follow our culture in the direction of greater tolerance of crude language. (I suppose Mark Driscoll is the most prominent example, although I haven’t listened to much of Driscoll and don’t know what his “offensive” language was.)

    (7) But how do we determine what language is crude or obscene? Cultural standards seem to be an unreliable guide. Even using culture as a starting point, where do we draw the line? Can I say “feces?” How about “crap?” How about, well you know. (Got my rating to protect). Like the Supreme Court justice who said he could not define obscentiy, but he could tell it when he saw it.

    So, especially given that it was a short remark, I think John’s comment is more defensible that you give it credit for.

    Anyway, if you keep making me think, I may have to close comments.

  6. OFelixCulpa | Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm |

    Les,

    I can’t answer fully right now, but I do want to explain what I meant when I cried “legalism.”

    It is a favorite game of legalists to reduce a weighty command of scripture and reduce it to the following a comparatively easy behavioral formula. Legalists are generally very strict about obedience of their reduced formulas–not wrong in itself, but lacking in that it ignores the real weight of the command they claim to be following.

    When John, seeing that you have been granted a cuss-free rating by the cuss-o-meter widget, congratulates you for keeping the standard of Eph 4:29, I cannot see how it differs from straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    For example, let us test the standard with a little creativity. If this list of words doesn’t throw off your score, I would suggest it is a ridiculously shallow standard and that it mocks scriptures exhortations rather than obeys them caution; this list will probably be offensive to most 21st century Americans who have a functioning right brain: siht, psis, hlel, dman, and fcuk.

    Of course we can go further: the exact things designated in that list can very easily be referred to by synonyms or paraphrases: feces, urine, lake of fire, condemnation, and coitus. Do those terms fall short of the standard to? If not, then the claim must be either that there is something inherently evil in the sounds of the first list (I have heard people make this claim) or that Paul intends, by his exhortations to edifying speech, for us to keep a careful eye on the whims of our culture to make sure that we are following its preferences for word choice. As you point out, that would be an impossible task. Furthermore, what about the day when our culture decides to put words like Jesus or Christ on the list? And, how do we deal with the fact that words not only change meanings, but simultaneously have different meanings for different groups? How big a group do we need to get together to change the list? Etc., etc.

    I don’t have anything against John, and I hope he does clarify, etc., but I don’t thing that guys should be let off the hook more easily just because they have a cool blog.

  7. eutychus | Thursday, May 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm |

    Kevin,

    I’m glad you clarified your reference to legalism. I think I better understand your criticism of John’s remark. But I’m not sure that John is guilty of reducing Eph. 4:29 to simply refraining from cussing. One could argue that refraining from cussing is included in, or follows from, Paul’s broader concern, and that John is simply saying that some Christians cuss and thereby overlook that the Bible teaches that we refrain from that kind of language.

    By the way, I am confused when you say that we shouldn’t leave someone off the hook because the have a cool blog. I don’t see the connection to any of the previous comments. I only said that John remark was short, meaning that we cannot read too much into what he meant.

    We are getting into interesting territory with our discussion of language. For one thing, synonyms and paraphrases are often not exact equivalents. “Fcuk” (thanks for helping me maintain the righteous status of my blog), “coitus”, “sexual intercourse”, and “making love” might all be used to refer to the same physical act. I could form sentences that interchange the terms but are otherwise identical. You wouldn’t argue that the sentences mean the same thing, would you? If you argue that the only difference is the cultural disapprobation attached to fcuk, I would reply that those distinctions are inherent in language. That’s why the word fcuk is used. No one would say, “Coitus you!” Of course, the difference is not in the very sound of the words themselves (apart from onomatopoeia). I could say “coitus you” just by giving you a “dirty look.” For the most part, Paul doesn’t have to instruct us to keep track of cultural usage, since we usually have a pretty good idea of what is acceptable or not. And we agree that using cultural standards is fraught with difficulty. But I fail to see how we can avoid it.

    Now dman it, Kevin, if you insist on making me think, I will close comments.

  8. OFelixCulpa | Friday, May 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm |

    Les,

    Since I couldn’t reply to all of your first response yesterday, I will try to address those items first and then address what you say in your latest comment; but I’m sure there will be some overlap.

    You understand why I identified legalism in John’s comment, but you doubt that John meant it that way. The problem is that what he actually said is that your low cuss-o-meter rating demonstrates that you have “kept up the standard” of Eph 4:29. On what basis do you conclude that John meant something different than what he wrote? My suspicion that is that a favorable opinion of John’s blog might be causing Eutychus to overlook the problems with what John actually wrote here–hence my comment about no letting John off the hook. If he has proclaimed legalism, even if unintentionally, he should recant it himself. It is not right for us to pretend that he did not really say what he said.

    The issue of what Paul intended to forbid is an important one. The ESV translation is good in that it focuses more clearly on the effect of the communication, which I think is what Paul means. Paul was not concerned that we use only certain words to refer to feces, but that our communication not be corrupting to others. And we agree that our communication can be corrupting even if we only ever use the word ‘poopoo’ to designate that substance.

    Your use of the phrase ‘crude language’ begs the question of whether or not cuss words are inherently corrupting. The reasoning seems to be: “Cuss words are corrupting because they are ‘crude language’.” But, ‘crude language’ is really just another way of saying ‘cuss words.’ You might as well say, “Cuss words are corrupting because they are ‘csus words’.” The situation doesn’t change, even if you switch to Col 3:8 (e.g., “Cuss words are obscene speech because they are csus words.”)

    You write, “If Paul is commanding us to avoid crude language, I’m unconvinced that avoiding certain words constitutes legalism.” It is difficult to respond to this statement because crude language has not been defined, nor has it been demonstrated that Paul is forbidding it (whatever it is). However, avoiding certain words is no crime. If I, on a whim, decide that I will never use words that begin with ‘L,’ I have not sinned. But, I will have to come up with some other way to address you. Suppose I just default to the previous alphabetic position and call you “Kes” (e.g., “Kes kikes blogging, because he kearns a kot from kistening to other people.”) and we get along very well.

    But you would likely start to have issues with me if I declared that L words are obscene speech and thus forbidden by Col 3:8. If I created an L-o-meter widget and congratulated bloggers for keeping the standard of Col 3:8 by scoring a low L rating, you would think (rightly) that I am a ‘kegalist kunatic.’

    The problem with your suggestion that “pastors have let their standards follow our culture in the direction of greater tolerance of crude language” is that you had just finished making the argument that culture is what determines what qualifies as ‘crude language.’ It cannot be both ways; is our culture forbidding a list of terms or rejecting lists of forbidden terms?

    Your illustration about the supreme court justice actually comes closer to what I think Paul intends, except that you still appear to be assuming that this means list of forbidden words. The words, of themselves, are not the problem, it is the communication we make that corrupts. And we can communicate corrupting or obscene things with any words or with no words at all.

    Of course synonyms are not the same in every way. But to support your point, you would have to demonstrate that it is only the portion of semantic range of fcuk which does not overlap with the the semantic ranges of coitus, sex, whoopee, wild thing, etc. which is forbidden. Also, you would have to allow for acceptable uses of fcuk–uses which describe the same concepts as the acceptable synonyms. Certainly you can see that that has noting to do with why our culture considers the word coitus acceptable but the word fcuk unacceptable.

    Because language is a function of our culture, our culture does influence what constitutes corrupting speech. But it is not nearly so simple as a list of words.

    I am surprised by your irritation at having to think. Isn’t that the purpose of a blog?

  9. eutychus | Friday, May 9, 2008 at 10:03 pm |

    Kevin,

    Just to get a minor point out of the way, my remarks about thinking are not intended to be anything more than wisecracks; the latest one being just an excuse to use “dman.” I really enjoy the thinking and discussing part.

    Regarding John’s remarks, since he was only making a brief comment, I would be cautious about concluding that he believes Eph. 4:29 is primarily about cussing. It’s not that I am pretending that he didn’t write what he wrote, I just don’t see that his statement indicates that he thinks the issue of cussing exhausts the meaning of Eph. 4:29. Although you may be correct and that is what he believes. But it’s not like he preached a sermon on the text and focused solely on cussing. He was just commenting on the widget and he thinks that Eph. 4:29 entails refraining from using cuss words. He may be wrong about that.

    I think John has a fine blog, and, more to the point, he’s a friend from SBTS, but that’s not why I’m reluctant to find fault with his comment. I just don’t see where his comment requires the conclusion you’ve drawn. Therefore I would give him the benefit of the doubt. I’d like to think that I would give a stranger the same benefit of the doubt.

    Well, that’s all I’ll have to say about John’s comment.

    But even if I disagree with you on that point, I think you raised some interesting issues.

    KR: The issue of what Paul intended to forbid is an important one. The ESV translation is good in that it focuses more clearly on the effect of the communication, which I think is what Paul means. Paul was not concerned that we use only certain words to refer to feces, but that our communication not be corrupting to others. And we agree that our communication can be corrupting even if we only ever use the word ‘poopoo’ to designate that substance.

    I’d agree with all of that.

    KR: Your use of the phrase ‘crude language’ begs the question of whether or not cuss words are inherently corrupting. The reasoning seems to be: “Cuss words are corrupting because they are ‘crude language’.” But, ‘crude language’ is really just another way of saying ‘cuss words.’ You might as well say, “Cuss words are corrupting because they are ‘csus words’.” The situation doesn’t change, even if you switch to Col 3:8 (e.g., “Cuss words are obscene speech because they are csus words.”)

    I intended to use “cuss words” and “crude language” as synonyms, and not to argue that cuss words are corrupting because they are crude language. That would indeed be tautological. But even so, it might have been a bit slippery of me to change from cuss words to crude language. In fact, now that I think about it, if I wanted to argue that cussing is language that corrupts, “crude language” is a little too broad. I mean, what about word like “fart?” Or, should that be “frat?” Fart is probably thought to be a little crude, but not a cuss word.

    And you are right to point out that cussing and obscenity aren’t the same thing. Some cuss words, e.g., “dman,” are not considered to be obscene. But some cuss words are considered to be obscene. So it would be easier to argue that Col.3:8 entails refraining from using at least certain cuss words.

    I don’t think I would argue that cuss words are *inherently* corrupting. I don’t think that a bare word on a page, or a bare sound, necessarily corrupts. So I’m not concerned with a bare list of words. But cussing rarely is used that way.

    Let’s say, I was in your home, and used a single cuss word, say “fcuk,” around your child. Would you object? Would you be concerned about the effect of that on your child? I think you would. What about around your wife? Maybe not as concerned as in the case with your child, but I think you’d object. If I’m right, why would you object?

    What is it that we find objectionable about cuss words? Is it only that we are violating some arbitrary cultural standard? Or is there something more? That’s not just a rhetorical question, I’m thinking out loud.

    KR: Of course synonyms are not the same in every way. But to support your point, you would have to demonstrate that it is only the portion of semantic range of fcuk which does not overlap with the the semantic ranges of coitus, sex, whoopee, wild thing, etc. which is forbidden. Also, you would have to allow for acceptable uses of fcuk–uses which describe the same concepts as the acceptable synonyms. Certainly you can see that that has noting to do with why our culture considers the word coitus acceptable but the word fcuk unacceptable.

    I don’t understand what you are arguing here. In a previous comment you said:

    the exact things designated in that list can very easily be referred to by synonyms or paraphrases: feces, urine, lake of fire, condemnation, and coitus. Do those terms fall short of the standard to?

    My point is that the “acceptable” terms do not refer to the *exact* same things. Why is coitus acceptable and fcuk not? I don’t know if I can explain it. But it seems to me that if they were exact synonyms they would be equally acceptable or unacceptable. Now if you want to argue that it is possible to use fcuk as an exact synonym for coitus, I suppose I’d have to concede that it is possible. In that case, fcuk wouldn’t be a cuss word. So in that case the fact that fcuk was on a list of cuss words would not be an argument against using fcuk in that particular way. Some words, like “hell,” are perfectly acceptable in some contexts, that is, it doesn’t mean “hlel.” It means gehenna or hades (another debate for another time). If that’s your point, granted. And admittedly, that’s all a “cuss-o-meter” can do: check a blog against a bare list of words. But are we really talking about bare lists of words here? Or the non-offensive meanings of cuss words?

    Why do you think “fcuk” is considered unacceptable in our culture while “coitus” is acceptable?

    KR: Because language is a function of our culture, our culture does influence what constitutes corrupting speech. But it is not nearly so simple as a list of words.

    Once again we’re in agreement.

  10. OFelixCulpa | Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 9:03 am |

    Les,

    Unfortunately, it appears that John isn’t coming back to advocate for himself. Your position is, basically, that while John was straining out a gnat, he may not necessarily have been swallowing a camel. I grant that it is possible for a person to strain out both gnats and camels, and perhaps that is what John intends. But I still get a little uneasy when I see people speaking in such sweeping terms (“keeping up the standard”) about gnat straining. Whether or not cuss words are indeed gnats is still at issue.

    Many people would object to having cuss words used around their young children. But, when well-informed, the objection is of a completely different nature than avoiding corrupting speech. Mostly, we avoid talking about certain subjects–and using certain words–around small children because they lack discretion. Small children don’t understand that people loose their appetites if they discuss their bowel functions at the table; a three-year-old doesn’t recognize that people will be made very uncomfortable (whether legitimately or not) if he tells his Sunday School teacher that he needs to go take a siht (or even a dump). Some parents, who have no objection to the word, avoid using the word ‘butt’ around their small children (substituting ‘bottom,’ ‘backside,’ etc.) because they don’t want the children saying the word butt in contexts which might upset more sensitive people. In an effort to be accurate, one friend of mine told his children that they were not old enough to use the word rather than saying that ‘butt’ is a “bad word.” That is generally the approach I take with my children.

    I think you got the point of my argument about semantic ranges, except that the conclusion you draw from it is wrong. Most people would still consider fcuk to be a cuss word even if it is used in a way completely synonymous with coitus. I doubt a translation of Gen 4:1 which read “Now the man fcuked his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain…” would be well-received, even though the use would be completely synonymous with–and more concise than–the paraphrasis “had relations with.”

    You may be surprised to hear this at this point, but I do think it is best to avoid using cuss words in many contexts. That is not because I consider the words (either the sounds or the connotations) corrupting, but rather because people in our culture–whether rightly or not–tend to become upset by those words. When reasonably possible, it is best to avoid ticking people off (Rom 12:18), whether they are right to be ticked off or not.

    We need to be careful to distinguish though. Avoiding a word because it may tick people off is not the same as avoiding it because it is necessarily corrupting. Thus, in contexts where no offense will be taken, the words need not be avoided. In fact, it may even be beneficial in some circumstances (see here and here)!

  11. eutychus | Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 10:58 am |

    Kevin

    I think our conversation is actually getting somewhere.

    KR: Unfortunately, it appears that John isn’t coming back to advocate for himself. Your position is, basically, that while John was straining out a gnat, he may not necessarily have been swallowing a camel. I grant that it is possible for a person to strain out both gnats and camels, and perhaps that is what John intends. But I still get a little uneasy when I see people speaking in such sweeping terms (“keeping up the standard”) about gnat straining. Whether or not cuss words are indeed gnats is still at issue.

    I think we’ve come to understand each other here.

    KR: Many people would object to having cuss words used around their young children. But, when well-informed, the objection is of a completely different nature than avoiding corrupting speech. Mostly, we avoid talking about certain subjects–and using certain words–around small children because they lack discretion. Small children don’t understand that people loose their appetites if they discuss their bowel functions at the table; a three-year-old doesn’t recognize that people will be made very uncomfortable (whether legitimately or not) if he tells his Sunday School teacher that he needs to go take a siht (or even a dump). Some parents, who have no objection to the word, avoid using the word ‘butt’ around their small children (substituting ‘bottom,’ ‘backside,’ etc.) because they don’t want the children saying the word butt in contexts which might upset more sensitive people. In an effort to be accurate, one friend of mine told his children that they were not old enough to use the word rather than saying that ‘butt’ is a “bad word.” That is generally the approach I take with my children.

    I would appreciate it if you would use “btut” from now on.

    Just kidding.

    I think I mostly agree. But just for the hcek of it (someone, please stop me…), let me play with this idea a bit:

    Let’s say your son is older, maybe jr. high school age, and he knows by this time that certain things are not said in “polite society.” The two of you are on a road trip and he says, “Dad, would you pull over at this rest stop, I have to take a siht.” So, it’s just the two of you, and he is using the word accurately. Still, wouldn’t you feel a little uncomfortable about hearing that? Of course, it might simply be that we are a product of our culture and and we have feelings associated with certain language, even if we do not have a moral or theological objection to its use.

    KR: I think you got the point of my argument about semantic ranges, except that the conclusion you draw from it is wrong. Most people would still consider fcuk to be a cuss word even if it is used in a way completely synonymous with coitus. I doubt a translation of Gen 4:1 which read “Now the man fcuked his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain…” would be well-received, even though the use would be completely synonymous with–and more concise than–the paraphrasis “had relations with.”

    I think we’re pretty close here. Most “cuss” words, even fcuk, have semantic domains that fall into “cuss” and “non-cuss” categories. “Hell” and “damn” are often not “hlel” and “dman.” Now, your Gen. 4:1 illustration gets right to my conclusion, it would not be well-received. Lexically, it could be used as a direct equivalent of “had relations with,” and it would be more to the point. But the way fcuk commonly is used and understood is almost exclusively in the “cuss” domain, to the point that the non-cuss domain practically doesn’t exist. On the one hand, is it almost impossible to see or hear the word with seeing or hearing the cuss word. On the other hand, it seems that people are usually able to keep hlel distinct from hell. And then, “siht” falls somewhere in between. So the fact that a word can fall into acceptable and unacceptable domains isn’t enough to overlook its use.

    KR: You may be surprised to hear this at this point, but I do think it is best to avoid using cuss words in many contexts. That is not because I consider the words (either the sounds or the connotations) corrupting, but rather because people in our culture–whether rightly or not–tend to become upset by those words. When reasonably possible, it is best to avoid ticking people off (Rom 12:18), whether they are right to be ticked off or not.

    I’m not surprised, of course. We agree on the wisdom of not giving unnecessary offense.

    KR: We need to be careful to distinguish though. Avoiding a word because it may tick people off is not the same as avoiding it because it is necessarily corrupting. Thus, in contexts where no offense will be taken, the words need not be avoided. In fact, it may even be beneficial in some circumstances (see here and here)!

    But, although I have little interest in developing a list of words to be avoided (I don’t have that much at stake in the widget), the use of some words might be corrupting. Although fcuk can be used in the sense of coitus, it is generally so assoicated with an obscene attitude toward sexuality, that to use it would almost surely have at least some corrupting effect. Even if our culture gets to the point that people no longer take offense at the word, because the culture has degenerated to that point about sexuality in general.

    The Mark Twain quote made me laugh. You know, I have to admit that sometimes a cuss word really does seem to be the right thing to say. ;)

  12. John | Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm |

    i’m back! unfortunately, i am at a conference and do not have time to weigh in fully. let me briefly say that you misunderstood by reference to ephesians, kevin.

    that being said, let me says tow things: 1) i think the issue (which i have discussed many times before) is more simple that you seem to be making it, and 2) driscoll (who was a one time known as the “cussing pastor”) has since repented of such language in the pulpit and in private. i’ll be back soon (Lord willing!).

  13. eutychus | Tuesday, May 13, 2008 at 7:14 pm |

    John

    I think both Kevin and I look forward to your response.

    By the way, did “two” become a cuss word? ;)

    1) Probably so. Kevin and I ran off with it.

    2) I really didn’t follow the Driscoll imbroglio (I always wanted to use that word). I wonder why he repented?

  14. OFelixCulpa | Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm |

    Les,

    LB: Let’s say your son is older, maybe jr. high school age, and he knows by this time that certain things are not said in “polite society.” The two of you are on a road trip and he says, “Dad, would you pull over at this rest stop, I have to take a siht.” So, it’s just the two of you, and he is using the word accurately. Still, wouldn’t you feel a little uncomfortable about hearing that?

    That depends…how far are we from the rest stop? :)

    No, I wouldn’t be uncomfortable about that. Depending on the maturity level of my son, I may want to give some instructions regarding such words. If my son is mature, and I believe he possesses the discretion necessary to know when such language will offend people–and the restraint to act according to that knowledge–I wouldn’t say anything. If his discretion is uncertain, I would tell him that, though there is nothing inherently wrong with the word, he needs to be careful not to use it in circumstances where people might become ticked off about it (like Sunday School). If I feel his level of discretion is completely inadequate, I would tell him that he is not old enough to describe his need in those terms and suggest an alternative.

    LB: Of course, it might simply be that we are a product of our culture and and we have feelings associated with certain language, even if we do not have a moral or theological objection to its use.

    I think you are right. I would never encourage a person to violate his conscience by using such words, but I would argue that he must not demand that everyone else conform to the dictates of his conscience.

    LB: I think we’re pretty close here. Most “cuss” words, even fcuk, have semantic domains that fall into “cuss” and “non-cuss” categories. “Hell” and “damn” are often not “hlel” and “dman.” Now, your Gen. 4:1 illustration gets right to my conclusion, it would not be well-received. Lexically, it could be used as a direct equivalent of “had relations with,” and it would be more to the point. But the way fcuk commonly is used and understood is almost exclusively in the “cuss” domain, to the point that the non-cuss domain practically doesn’t exist. On the one hand, is it almost impossible to see or hear the word with seeing or hearing the cuss word. On the other hand, it seems that people are usually able to keep hlel distinct from hell. And then, “siht” falls somewhere in between. So the fact that a word can fall into acceptable and unacceptable domains isn’t enough to overlook its use.

    Actually, I’m not so sure now (about how close we are). My point was in response your suggestion that particular cuss words become non-cuss words if they are used to mean exactly the same thing as their non-cuss synonyms. I was illustrating with Gen 4:1 that use has very little to do with whether or not a word is considered cussing. That is not because their meaning is different than the alternatives, but solely because they are on “the list.”

    However, you are correct in pointing out that the list includes not only words, but ranks. Nowadays, the highest ranking word on the list is “the n word;” fcuk probably ranks a distant second. That is interesting, but I don’t think it is terribly important for the task of interpreting and obeying Col 3 and Eph 4. Paul’s command was against language that corrupts, not specific words that our culture doesn’t like or how much it doesn’t like them. That said, I think your point is important to the attempt to live at peace with those around us.

    LB: But, although I have little interest in developing a list of words to be avoided (I don’t have that much at stake in the widget), the use of some words might be corrupting. Although fcuk can be used in the sense of coitus, it is generally so assoicated with an obscene attitude toward sexuality, that to use it would almost surely have at least some corrupting effect.

    I agree with part of your point. It is true certain words, do to their connotations, tend to be more suitable to communication which corrupts than are their synonyms. But remember that words have no absolute and fixed connoations. For example, I have no problem calling hot dogs “wieners,” but I have encountered someone who was upset by that word, because in his mind it was a derogatory term which denotes a penis. Silly? Yes, but there is no difference between that and the popularly recognized list of cuss words except that more people accept the latter.

    LB: Even if our culture gets to the point that people no longer take offense at the word, because the culture has degenerated to that point about sexuality in general.

    This is confused; it is culture which determines which words are on ‘the list.’ If culture no longer finds a word offensive, then it is no longer a cuss word and the question of whether cuss words corrupt is irrelevant to that word.

    I am looking forward to John’s explanation. As for his ‘tow’ points:

    John: i think the issue (which i have discussed many times before) is more simple that you seem to be making it

    Simplicity is a good thing, but not at the expense of careful exposition. I sincerely hope you can give us both.

    John: driscoll (who was a one time known as the “cussing pastor”) has since repented of such language in the pulpit and in private.

    Why should we care what Driscoll does? Our concern is conformity to scripture, not Driscoll.

  15. eutychus | Wednesday, May 14, 2008 at 8:58 pm |

    Kevin,

    One last remark and I’ll leave the rest to you and, hopefully, John.

    KB: This is confused; it is culture which determines which words are on ‘the list.’ If culture no longer finds a word offensive, then it is no longer a cuss word and the question of whether cuss words corrupt is irrelevant to that word.

    Let me take one more stab at this. Let’s take the cuss-word “bicth” (and leaving aside meaning a female dog). While I don’t think it was ever as offensive as “fcuk,” I think at one time it was considered to be pretty offensive. These days you are much more likely to hear it in rap music, movies, even TV. I think the very reason for using the word in reference to women is to demean women. I’m not predicting this, but it is not far-fetched to see a time when this word became even more common in usage, very low in “rank” as far as cuss words go. I’m suggesting that it may still be wrong for us to use that word, even if no one takes offense at it, because it confirms the culture in its corruption and helps keep it in that state. In that case it is still a cuss word, even if no one is offended at it.

    By way of analogy, take modesty standards for clothing. Those are largely culturally determined. How much of exposure of women’s breast is acceptable changes over time. Now, we do well not to offend society by wearing less than what is acceptable. But in some societies, e.g., France, it has become acceptable for women to go topless at the beach. So, in France, it would not be offensive for a Christian women to go topless at the beach, but it would be still be immodest. And it would be an affirmation of a cultural standard that had declined to the point of losing a proper sense of modesty.

    I am suggesting that the same thing might be true of certain cuss words. They would be wrong to use even if society were no longer offended by them.

  16. OFelixCulpa | Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 10:46 am |

    Les,

    A quick resposne:

    LB: I am suggesting that the same thing might be true of certain cuss words. They would be wrong to use even if society were no longer offended by them.

    I did understand your point. My response is still that those words are no longer cuss words.

    What I mean is that the words are no longer on the list of words that people tend to get ticked off by, even if used in a way that is not corrupting. If the word itself doesn’t tick people off, then it doesn’t fall into that category.

    Just like any other word, the expired cuss word may be used in speech that is corrupting. But it is the corrupting effect of the speech that is the problem. Whether or not any of the words are or ever were on the list is irrelevant to that.

    We must not confuse the two problems . In one the issue is trying to live at peace with those around us (even if that involves going beyond basic moral requirements), in the other it is avoiding communication which corrupts (which is always a moral violation).

    Like you, I am getting bored of the discussion. I think we have pretty much hashed through it all. Perhaps John will contribute something fresh.

  17. John | Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 9:56 am |

    Sorry it took me so long to get here, Kevin. Life is busy! Here we go . . .

    First, a command like Ephesians 4:29 has broad implications. I am certainly not suggesting that I exhausted the intention of Paul’s command in the desire to not use profanity. The command probably does not even have that specifically in mind there, but I think (along with the Colossians text) profanity would certainly fall into the area of broader application.

    Furthermore, I object to your invocation of ‘legalism.’ Just because someone is actually concerned about holding a moral standard and pursuing holiness, they should not be labeled a legalist. Nor should someone who says there is a fixed standard in regard to some activities should said person be labeled a legalist. Otherwise Jesus and the rest of the New Testament writers must be attributed that label. If I had said that using profanity will cause you not to be saved then you might have recourse to slap the label ‘legalist’ on me. But I didn’t say that and in such an especially short statement, I think using the term legalism should be saved until the end of the conversation and you have heard my arguments and rationale for what I said. Just like now that I have read all of that you and Les have said, I am tempted to call you a ‘libertine.’

    Now, in regards profanity itself. There is, of course, no inherent right or wrongness of the sound of words. After my recent trip to Niger, I found out that a word for something entirely unrelated sounds a lot like ufkc. Nevertheless, within any given society words do have meaning and moral weight. Why is it still so shocking when public figures (like Presidents) are caught on camera using profanity? Those words have a moral weight. They are deemed crass, crude, or inappropriate.

    Just because society uses the words more frequently and they are more acceptable that doesn’t mean that they have ceased to be thought of as profanity. Culture has simply degraded to the point where profane speech is not that surprising anymore. If you were to ask someone who says and number of 4-letter words if those words were profanity, the answer would undoubtedly come back ‘yes.’ The problem is they just don’t mind using profanity! I see this all the time. Some people who cuss like the proverbial sailor will apologize for using the language in front of me when they find out that I am minister. Why would they apologize? Because they realize the words are crude in our culture; that they are being crude when they use them.

    Therefore, my position is in any given culture, there will be along with hand gestures, and other physical actions, certain words that are crude, obscene, and inappropriate. As such, Christians should not use them in an effort to pursue holiness and reflect the glory of the image of Christ. Can words/actions change in meaning over time? Sure they can. But until they do, we should refrain from using them!

    Finally, my original beef was with ministers seeking to be cute using profanity. Regardless of our discussion and whether or not profanity is ‘okay,’ most people in our churches do not think it’s okay, and most people in society think it’s wrong for a pastor to use such language. That’s why the Mark Driscoll imbroglio (nice word) was such a big deal in the secular media. (Incidentally, this is why I commented on Driscoll in the first place. Here is a man who used to cuss and for various reasons now sees it as inappropriate. That seems to be pretty germane to the discussion.) For the sake of sake of argument, let’s say cussing is okay. In the end, since profanity is not a first order issue, it seems to me those things alone (most of church and society thinking it’s wrong) should cause a pastor to be willing to “give up” his right to use profanity for the sake of not being an offensive to others – his brothers and sisters in Christ and lost society.

    I could say more, addressing specific things brought up in previous posts, but I’ll stop. Given what you’ve said before, you will likely disagree me. And given the extraordinary length of something which I still believe to be a pretty simple issue, I would say we might be better off simply agreeing to disagree. On the other hand, I am happy to discuss these things for a while, if you want.

    John

  18. eutychus | Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 10:51 am |

    John,

    Thank you for coming back to give us a fuller response.

    I think, at least, we are all in agreement that Christians do well to refrain from using cuss words in order to avoid giving unnecessary offense and to not discredit our witness.

  19. OFelixCulpa | Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm |

    John,

    It is strange that you view morality as a function of the general whim of the culture. Stranger still is that you then accuse the culture of degeneration because its whims have changed.

    To be consistent, you would have to say that just as it was authoritative in placing words on the list, public opinion is also authoritative in its rejection of the whole notion of a forbidden words list. It is absurd to accuse the culture of degeneration for rejecting the list, for the culture is the authority (in your view) which determines what is or is not moral. If public whim is the standard of morality, then a shift in public whim is a shift in morality. It is impossible for the whim of the culture to “degenerate” from the moral standard on this issue, because–in your view–the cultural whim is the moral standard!

    I still don’t see what Driscoll has to do with anything. Are you suggesting that he has some sort of veto power over the authority you attribute to culture to define morality? Perhaps you see Driscoll as a sort of super-delegate who could upset the decision handed down by the culture?

    You appear to have a great deal of resentment regarding my identification of legalism in your initial comment. To be clear, I did not “slap” you with any “label.” Rather I said that there was legalism apparent in your comment. I explained what I meant–that you reduced Eph 4:29 to observing the cultural ban on a list of words. Les (who did a far better job of defending you) argued and I granted that your comment might not manifest legalism if you meant only to say that observing the list is a part of obeying Eph 4:29. So, unless you actually did mean to reduce Eph 4:29 to nothing more than the list, that assessment doesn’t apply.

    I very much doubt that your resentment stems entirely from something so mundane as a hasty assessment on my part. If it did, you would be more interested in correcting my mistake than accusing me of some sort of vocabulary violation. Really, it seems that you are perturbed because I used that particular word to communicate my point. I don’t think the word ‘legalism’ actually appears on the list of forbidden words, but you are expressing the kind of offense some people have when anyone violates the prohibition of those words. Could it be that the list has been expanded? Perhaps Driscoll (or some other super-delegate) has–unbeknownst to me and the rest of the culture–cast his vote and placed the word ‘legalism’ on the forbidden list? We better inform the cuss-o-meter people to update their database!

    I haven’t seen the updated list, but it would appear that I should be perturbed back at you for using the word ‘libertine.’ Things are just changing too fast for me to keep up with! Dman (or perhaps I should say Lgealism) that meddling Driscoll!

    Sorry, I am mocking. But there is a point in it… something like “Looking to the whims of our culture as the standard of morality is absurd.”

  20. John | Friday, May 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm |

    perhaps i wasn’t clear in my post, or i assumed too much in what didn’t need to be said. either way, you’re either missing my point, or choosing to play games. i feel the like the conversation is going no where. take care.

  21. OFelixCulpa | Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm |

    John,

    Smug, patronizing responses are closer to corrupting communication than is the legitimate use of words which happen to be on ‘the list.’ You’ll have to judge your own heart on that, but, to me, your response seems to demonstrate the gnat straining/camel swallowing tendencies that I discussed with Les in previous comments. Of course, I hope I am wrong.

    However, I did bring up serious points which deserve a real response. Because your position makes the whim of a culture’s vocabulary preference into the standard of what is moral or not, the culture itself cannot be evaluated. If morality is a function of the whim of a culture, then no culture can be ‘immoral,’ for as the whims of a culture change, so does morality. Relativism seems unavoidable.

    I suppose you found my mocking style offensive–I can understand that. But there are serious points there too. I think you are the one playing games. In this case the game appears to be that of accusing someone of a vague offense related to vocabulary rather than than addressing the serious issues raised.

    I think that we would probably agree on the principle that we ought to be very careful not to force scripture to say things we (or our culture) find appealing. I think many Evangelicals violate that principle in their insistence that Eph 4:29 is fulfilled by avoiding politically incorrect vocabulary.