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.

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.”

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?