Asleep at the Wheel (or Too Many Irons in the Fire)
A few folks have noted that I’ve been largely absent from a number of conversations recently and that my writing on Fishing has slowed of late. With the end of the school year concluding with my son Phoenix’s graduation, the Lyons household has become rather - busy - of late. My lunchtimes (in which I catch up on reading/writing) have also been squeezed due to my work schedule (which is cyclicly high right now), as well.
I will be out of town from next Wednesday through the 24th, taking Phoenix on a father/son camping trip up the US west coast, but I believe that CRN.Info is in the most capable of hands with Nathan, Neil, Joe, JohnD and Matt - who all have the capability to moderate comments and defend Christian brothers and sisters from internal attacks in my absence.
With that said, I must have been asleep at the wheel last weekend to have missed an EXCELLENT article from our friends at VerumSerum on Ingrid’s radio station’s decision to dump Chuck Swindoll from their lineup. Give A Prude By Any Other Name…Still Sounds Like a Pharisee! a read.Â
Here’s a sample:
Back in November of 2000, Swindoll seems to have stepped into it by discussing “The Lion King.†Ingrid prefaces VCY American’s objection by saying:
Christian broadcasters all over the country were giving warnings regarding the homosexual promotion such as gay days, gay-friendly issues and other depraved issues being promoted by Disney. While this boycott was going on, Insight For Living took another position. The November 20, 2000 IFL program promoted “The Lion King†(produced by Disney) using it as an illustration. Chuck Swindoll stated on this broadcast.
On this day, Swindoll said:
“Now I could ruin the rest of the story for you, but rather than doing that, I’ll urge you to go down to your local video store and rent for yourself, ‘The Lion King’â€.
Regarding this, Ingrid said: At that time VCY addressed concern to IFL pointing out that researchers who reviewed this movie stated that the one who anoints Simba as king, was Rafiki, who happens to be a witch doctor. Rafiki carries his magical pack on the top of his staff. Viewers are taught throughout the movie that you can align yourself with witchcraft to overcome evil. It is also pointed out that the movie promotes talking to the dead (necromancy).
(My thought-It’s a CHILDREN’S MOVIE!!! Ingrid must be LOADS of fun as a mom.)
My thoughts exactly!
June 1st, 2007 at 10:41 am
While I am VERY careful as to what I let my kids watch I do agree that Ingrid can take it too far. I have heard her rail against VeggieTales. BTW the latest VTales are junk, the earliest one had a very solid Biblical message. We let our kids watch Lion King, however, there is a lot of Disney stuff that I would prefer my kids not watch. Just because it is for Kids doesn’t mean I want my kids embracing the worldview that is often promoted in cartoons for Kids. Pohkahontas, Mulan, and there are many others that promote Magic and Occult as fun and innocent. There is a lot more wholesome stuff to watch. Does that make sense?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:41 am
BTW, I like the dog pics, I was missing those.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
I have been asleep at the wheel myself. Busy with real life. I have been keeping an eye on on CRN and Slice, though.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
Personally, I think parents see things in children’s movies and TV shows that kids are never going to pick up on. I know my one aunt wouldn’t let my cousins watch the Smurfs, Tom & Jerry, etc. growing and tried to convince my mom that she should do the same for us. Fortunately my parent weren’t ever that uptight with us. The ironic thing is that my one cousin totally rebelled for a while when he was older and ended up getting into a lot of trouble. I’m not saying parent need to be completely hands off, but I think for Christians to make blanket judgement on these types of things is just useless. Let individual parents decide what’s right for their kids.
So much of modern Christianity is really no more than Phariseeism. We focus on these external things while ignoring the true heart of the matter. It’s exactly opposite of what Jesus told us to do.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am
We watch Lion King and really enjoy it for its intended purposes. We also use it to explain to our kids reality, metaphor, religion, etc. The dividing line is what will damage them simply by watching it. We have been able to watch Lion King without damage and then use it for spiritual discussion and what the Bible says about the dead, majic, etc. This is what our house does to decide what to watch.
Anybody watch Elmer Fudd fire a shotgun at Daffy Duck and then the duck would readjust his beak and carry on and understand reality? Anybody watch Bugs Bunny where a dress and see the comic nature rather some other agenda?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:55 am
Bugs bunny, now that was good TV watching, I will still check out Bugs from the Library for my “kids” (me) and watch it with them and laugh my socks off……
June 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I’ve never worried about the cartoons my kids watched. I’d like to think that on some level, they just knew, without being told, that dropping an anvil on someone’s head from a second story window was innappropriate behavior.
But then again, I never had alot of loose anvils laying around the house. Imagine the trouble those little monsters might have gotten into.
All I know is that if there was anyone that could find evil and danger lurking in the most obscure of places, it would be Ingrid.
Just curious, do you think if Jerry Falwell had been in his prime back in the ’40s when Bugs Bunny was vamping around in dresses, he would have been a target for ol’ Jerry the way Tinky Winky was?
After all, Bugs seemed to enjoy it way too much.
Good Lord, I’m talking about cartoon characters as though they were real people! Ingrid…help us find the way!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
The second most significant concern in Ingrid’s list regarding Chuck Swindoll, was the whole section about the “whore” movie. I can’t imagine the men from my church getting together to go to a movie like that. And I can’t imagine giving public support to my husband for doing such a thing, as Swindoll’s wife did.
The most significant problem was the letter from Mrs. Swindoll in which the philosophy of do whatever it takes to reach out to real people is touted.
I’m not planning to be around to discuss this much if at all, so if anyone asks me questions, they probably won’t be answered.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Did I miss something on the VS site. I didn’t see any reference to Swindoll and a “whore” movie.
Amy, what are you talking about?
June 1st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I think Amy is talking about Swindoll’s commentary on the Clint Eastwood movie “Unforgiven”. It is on the Slice article, but I don’t think VS mentions it. The main gripe is that Swindoll is basically endorsing an R-rated movie, but even in his endorsement he says it serves as sort of a negative example.
He said, “You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.â€
Hey, at least he had the balls (snicker) to admit to watching an R-rated film. Most pastors keep those types of things hidden.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Over on that post at VS, Ken bemoaned that it was sad that Scott had spent so much time refuting the whole thing (it is a rather long post).
But when I asked Ken to tell us (from the voice of experience) how much sadder it was to make an entire career of it, he didn’t answer.
Wonder why that was?
June 1st, 2007 at 10:06 pm
I would say “bemoaned” is just a tad bit of an overstatement. And as to why I didn’t answer um, maybe because it’s a foolish question.
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 am
Now there’s the pot calling the Frigidaire black
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:30 am
*taking out my notepad*
O wow, Brendt; man do you mind if I use that?!
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
The movie I referred to was in the original article by Ingrid which Verum Serum was addressing. I hadn’t remembered the name of it, which was “Unforgiven” but rather the original name of it which was “The Cut Whore Killings.” On Slice, Ingrid says what Swindoll said about it as well as gives his wife’s remarks.
This was Chuck’s intro: “So, I thought, let’s go see a movie. And I thought about that great theological work, ‘Unforgiven’. So I said to the guys, and we agreed, that’s our kind of a film. It’s kind of a guy sort of thing…tough, rugged, unshaven, spittin, cussin, you know, yellin, smoking, big stuff like this. No Harley’s, but a lot of hard knockin stuff, bad stuff and I thought that’s a great kind of thing to do, we ought to do that. So we all agreed and I was filled with expectation, I thought this is gonna be terrific. Well, I hated it . . . .”
Here is some of what Ingrid said about it, “Again VCY raised objection to IFL stating this illustration was uncalled for and highly inappropriate. This movie carried an “R†Rating. Upon conducting some research, VCY learned this film was filled with vulgarities, took God’s name in vain repeatedly, and had explicit vulgar sexual references. (The scripting is so vile that VCY cannot put it into print.) VCY also learned later that the original script title for this movie was, “The Cut Whore Killingsâ€. We asked ourselves the question, why are Chuck and his interns there to begin with? According to his own words in his illustration, Chuck went to see this movie understanding this would be a “cussin†film. When he stated all that happened in this film that was dishonoring to the Lord (swearing, prostitution, slicing a body, etc) VCY asked why did he stay there? especially with those he was training in the ministry. VCY further asked why would Chuck recommend at the end of his illustration that people need to go see the movie?”
Haven’t seen the movie, am not planning to, - just thought Ingrid had a very legitimate concern.
Here’s a reference to the whole thing, including the rest of Chuck’s comment, and his wife’s comment: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=159
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Amy,
I saw ‘Unforgiven’ when it came out. Despite being fairly well plugged into the movie scene (I used to write a film critic column), this is the first time I’ve heard of the original screenplay title, and I seriously doubt Mr. Swindoll would have, either. As it was, ‘Unforgiven’ was a Clint Eastwood movie that won multiple Academy Awards and was (at the time) billed as a ‘cowboy movie that doesn’t try to paint a glossy picture of the Old West’. In actuality, it was a movie about how revenge and unforgiveness lead to bitterness and death. Chuck wasn’t actually recommending the movie - there was a HUGE ‘if” he precluded the “recommendation” with, and it seems pretty obvious that it wasn’t an endorsement.
Once again, this is a case of Ingrid focusing on externals, and you following in lock-step
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Chris L.,
Any chance that the lack of understanding concerning what it actually means to live a holy life and to be strangers and pilgrims in a foreign land so prevalent within this new evangelicalism precludes you from seeing Swindoll’s crassness in his leadin concerning that useless movie?
Any chance that it is you instead who is following in lockstep…
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Much of what could be gained by a Scriptural uinderstanding of separation and a dialogue of the same is lost when one person is attacked. I believe Christian’s should at least avoid PG-13 movies, but I also know that many Godly men attend such movies and it doesn’t completely disqualify them from the ministry.
When you attach a face to an argument you suddenly lose the focus on the issue itself and it becomes a referendum on that person. Whether a believer is hindered in his testimony or his walk by attending Hollywood movies is a very legitimate issue, especially in our day. I would make the case never to go.
But if a minister such as Swindoll accompanies the discussion it becomes a dialogue about him and not the issue. Also women should never be in the place of a correcting or rebuking ministry except to their own children, certainly not Bibilcal office holders. That also dilutes the argument and makes it about the accuser rather than the issue.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Ken,
Let me ask you a question. Which is worse: “balls” or “urinating on the blood of the Reformation martyrs”? You use that vulgarity in this phrase: “Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren also cites Graham for his inspiration of urinating on the blood of the Reformation martyrs and embracing apostate Roman Catholicism as a Christian denomination . . .”
As though Rick is actually justifying the act of urinating on men and women of faith based on the fact that Billy Graham has already done it.
I’m sorry but the disgusting picture that phrase conurs up in my mind is revolting.
Shame on you Ken, shame on you.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
JohnD,
Then it looks like I’ve done my job correctly. I’d say you’ll have to begin to grow up into the faith, if you’re in it. This is the real world and the real spiritual battle is going to be enjoined by genuine Christians who will have had their fill of men like Rick Warren.
It is absolutely beyond refutation that Rick Warren considers the apostate Roman Cathoic Church as a Christian denomination. The Reformers who were brutally murdered on orders from wiked Roman popes obviously did not. Time to wake up now JohnD.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Ken,
JohnD was questioning why you used a vulgar description. Your response was to question his faith and you did not even respond to so-called vulgarities.
Regarding a wicked act committed by a pope, how far will you go in vulgarity to make your point? What is acceptable? It appears to me that you are using the same excuse as Swindoll.
For the record, I was not offended by your reference here or Swindolls, but I do support VCY to do what they feel is proper.
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
ummm….
I’m tired of hearing one-sided complaints about murder in the name of religion….
to be sure, the roman church committed murder, but so did protestants. Humans are wicked and they pervert religion and faith for the sake of power.
To argue quantity of deaths as some kind of greater culpability is a distraction to serve an agenda.
ONE life snuffed out is too many…
This constant whining about the “murderous papists” is ridiculous. I could easily moan about Calvin and his treatment of the anabaptists and then say there is a necessary demonic quality to reformed theology because of it…and even the arminians would find that laughable, at best, and offensive, at worst. Besides…IT DIDN”T HAPPEN TO YOU!!!! Glad you know your history, but let’s stay on topic.
If we want to talk about the history of The Church, then let’s start a different thread.
Otherwise, on this thread, give it a rest and answer the questions put to you, please.
Is talking about urination and using scatalogical terms like “skybala” the same thing or not? If NO, then Why not? If YES, then own your mistake, turn from it and publicly commit to offload using such “phraseology”.
So?
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I’m not interested in your responses to any other portion of my comment either other than this:
Is talking about urination and using scatalogical terms like “skybala†the same thing as Swindoll or not? If NO, then why not? If YES, then own your mistake, turn from it and publicly commit to offload using such “phraseologyâ€.
June 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
They are both crass and careless. One is is used as a colloquialism, the other as hyperbole. Both should be avoided.
June 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
the crickets are chirping…
I’d like to hear from Ken the answers to the question put to him…
Is talking about urination and using scatalogical terms like “skybala†the same thing as Swindoll or not? If NO, then why not? If YES, then own your mistake, turn from it and publicly commit to offload using such “phraseologyâ€.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Well AN since I live on the edge of the woods I happen to find the sound of crickets relaxing.
But in deference for those who may not. No; I purposely didn’t use the more coarse words for those subjects. And it’s well known that people in the emerging church make argument for being able to use words more vulgar than I did.
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Ken,
How do you then justify Luther using very foul language? Why don’t you write against his us of the “S” word?
Why do you not castigate Martin Luther? Or all the Lutherans over their “leader” swearing?
Also, you seemed to have no problem using Tony Jone’s “swear word” in at least two of your own articles… Instead of “censoring” yourself you used the same exact thing as Tony Jones… and then still called him offensive for his choice of words…
It seems that it is OK for you to use the same word for YOUR purposes, but not for Tony to use it…
One standard for yourself and another for others…
iggy
Be Blessed,
iggy
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
iggy,
When did I ever use the f-word unless I was quoting Jones…
June 4th, 2007 at 1:14 am
In your titles on that article… and in at least two article on that topic… i can see using a “quote” but to use it in a title…
Yet you use the quote there….
“TONY JONES OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH SAYS: “THE BIBLE IS AN F***KING SCARY BOOK—
I can see you quoting with a disclaimer and then a warning that it could be offensive… but it seems you saw it not as offensive but rather as a point of rub to “get” Tony.
If this was as offensive as you stated in your article… you could’ve titled it “less offensive” as to me Tony’s comment (through true) was a bit over the top… and I did call him on it myself.
Now, you do say you “wish” you did not have to use that title… but still you did not have to… which proves the point… you chose to use the title and used the same word for the same reason as Tony… To shock people into reading your post.
So, again for Tony to use it, it is wrong, for you is is good…
and that is really hypocritical.
You hide behind a thin veil that really is not there…
iggy
June 4th, 2007 at 8:04 am
It is wrong for anybody to use vulgarity, even when quoting. It is enough to point out who does without quoting the word even with some letters missing. Although Ken’s letter missing usage is much less an offense than the guy who actually uses these words. It is unbelievable.
When I was a new Christian it was understood that you asked the Lord to clean up your language, today it is acceptable even from so called preachers. I remember when we would avoid using “heck” or “gosh” because it resembled other words. Boy, we were such starry-eyed legalists back then!
June 4th, 2007 at 8:50 am
To me it seems like the whole issue of vulgarity is something that is very relative, as far as actual words go. There are a few “big” words that I guess would be universally considered vulgar, at least in specific cultures, but there are a lot of things that are grey areas. My parents, for example, would consider things such as, “that sucks” or “crap” as out of line, but most people don’t think twice about it today. I will try to be respectful when I am around people like that, but I think there are practical limits.
The thing this all comes down to is again a heart issue. It is easy to try to make people make external changes that mean nothing, but only God can truly change people’s hearts from the inside out. For whatever reason, we just like whitewashing tombs.
June 4th, 2007 at 8:54 am
“Although Ken’s letter missing usage is much less an offense than the guy who actually uses these words. It is unbelievable.”
No, what is unbelievable is that we’re discussing a very well known and, in more and more evangelical circles, well respected “Christian” leader using this kind of language about God’s Word!
And what’s more unbelievable is that so many actually defend Jones’ inexcusable sin of using coarse language about the very Word of God itself. While I have no complaints that I’m being attacked over quoting him, you actually have zero here with which to legitimately bash me. Try discussing Tony Jones.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Ingrid says the use of scatalogical terms indicates a “deeper spiritual problem” and a limited vocabulary.
Ken uses scatalogical terms all the time (e.g., my comments above) to accuse those with whom he disagrees.
Websters defines hypocrite as: “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”.
June 4th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Chris,
You said, “Once again, this is a case of Ingrid focusing on externals, and you following in lock-step”
Chris I’ve had a relationship with Jesus Christ long before Ingird came along. I seriously doubt I would have ever watched that movie no matter who wrote the review. The more I’ve become sensitive to hearing and obeying the Holy Spirit, the less I am comfortable watching. It doesn’t mean that I close my eyes to the sins and pain of this world; it’s that I feel that that sin and pain grieves me in a way that it grieves God. Often Hollywood does a good job of presenting sin - but it can be done in a way that entices the viewer instead of in a way that makes the viewer look at it the way God looks at it.
Christians are “set apart” spiritually. I don’t make decisions about what I do based on some list of rules, but because of that reality of being set apart. My Father is with me, always. I believe that I can grieve Him by what I let into my mind. I believe that I can, by ignoring the still small voice, harden my heart and become less sensitive to Him. In the end that loss of sensitivity can affect many things, including my compassion towards real sinners in the real world, because it is also from “the still small voice,” the love of God that comes from the Holy Spirit, that I am drawn towards those people who love and do the very things I wouldn’t think to watch in a movie.
June 4th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Amy,
The “lock-step” isn’t addressed to your conscience, but to the judging of others via externals.
You wrote:
I agree, and there is discernment required re: Hollywood. Ironically, in the case of “Unforgiven”, there was no ‘enticement’ to make sin look acceptable - in fact, it was exactly the opposite - showing the logical, ugly ends of revenge and unforgiveness.
While I’m not a big Swindoll fan by any stretch of the imagination, Ingrid/VCY’s petty complaints (particularly with the Lion King and other decade-old complaints) were just that - petty and nit-picking.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Chris,
I don’t see that Swindoll was concerned about what the movie was teaching to start with: “So, I thought, let’s go see a movie. And I thought about that great theological work, ‘Unforgiven’. So I said to the guys, and we agreed, that’s our kind of a film. It’s kind of a guy sort of thing…tough, rugged, unshaven, spittin, cussin, you know, yellin, smoking, big stuff like this. No Harley’s, but a lot of hard knockin stuff, bad stuff and I thought that’s a great kind of thing to do, we ought to do that. So we all agreed and I was filled with expectation, I thought this is gonna be terrific. . . . ” If you’ve read the rest of his comments, you see that upon looking at the film he doesn’t see that it has any merit.
Earlier you said, “Chuck wasn’t actually recommending the movie - there was a HUGE ‘if†he precluded the “recommendation†with, and it seems pretty obvious that it wasn’t an endorsement.” But according to Ingrid he said, “You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.â€
I’m not sure what you mean by the HUGE ‘if;” the way I understood it, he simply talked about negative stuff in the movie, was kind of worried that someone might see him there, yet just sat through the whole thing. Then he recommended others seeing it, because it represents hopelessness, I guess.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Amy, I support your position where you say you are grieved by the stuff in the movie. I even support your position to not go see the movie and to tell as many people as you can that they shouldn’t see the movie–if they ask you. What I don’t get about Ingrid’s post and perhaps, your position is when she (or you) start saying that other’s are sinning because they saw the movie. When that happens, it seems that she is setting herself up as the Holy Spirit in that person’s life.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Amy,
Here is the WHOLE quote (not just the isogetical ‘you need to see this film’):
As I read it, he was expecting to see a good Western movie (which Hollywood has not produced in years), and ‘Unforgiven’ - had all the appearances of such. It won the Academy Award for Best Picture, it was directed by spaghetti-western icon (and Acadamey Award winner) Clint Eastwood, and it was billed as an unglamorous view of the Old West and the true consequences of its lifestyle.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I will agree with you Ken, any preacher that uses the “F” word is either backslidden or not a preacher at all.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Joe,
Ingrid’s article was about the reasons for cancelling Chuck Swindoll’s radio program. My guess is that Ingrid’s main concern about the movie was that Swindoll showed no Biblical insight in how he made the decision to attend the movie in the first place. He showed no biblical reasons for continuing to watch the movie. Furthermore, he showed no biblical reasons for recommending the movie. Since VOA feels responsible for what the people they have on their program are teaching, I can see how she would feel that the way he approached this movie could just affirm what many Christians already practice: approaching entertainment without caution, and filling their minds with trash for entertainment purposes.
If you think that Ingrid is setting herself up as the Holy Spirit, or that I am setting up myself as the Holy Spirit, then I think a fair conclusion is that Chuck Swindoll, Mrs. Swindoll, are also playing the role of Holy Spirit.
Swindoll, as a teacher hopefully teaching under the power of the Holy Spirit, says, “So, I thought, let’s go see a movie. And I thought about that great theological work, ‘Unforgiven’. So I said to the guys, and we agreed, that’s our kind of a film. It’s kind of a guy sort of thing…tough, rugged, unshaven, spittin, cussin, you know, yellin, smoking, big stuff like this. No Harley’s, but a lot of hard knockin stuff, bad stuff and I thought that’s a great kind of thing to do, we ought to do that. So we all agreed and I was filled with expectation, I thought this is gonna be terrific. . . . â€
I must also conclude that the Holy Spirit is with Chuck when he describes the movie as “raunchy,” makes a comment about his wife knowing he’s there, looks around to see who might see him there . . .
I must also conclude that the Holy Spirit is agreeing that Chuck and his friends need to sit through this movie, and that the Holy Spirit through Chuck has recommended that I go watch this movie.
Then, if I believe that his wife is also speaking through the Holy Spirit, I must agree that being “real” being on the “edge” to reach people is biblical, without knowing what scriptures she uses to draw the line about just how far one goes.
Well, I don’t happen to think that Chuck’s reasons for going to go to the movie and recommending the movie were in line with Scripture. Neither do I think that his wife’s reasoning is biblical. But according to Joe, I can’t have those thoughts, because if I do, I’m playing Holy Spirit, saying that they are sinning.
So, my conclusion is that you think it’s fine for the Holy Spirit through Swindoll to present the idea that there was no sin in what he did, but it’s not fine for the Holy Spirit through me to say that the whole approach was unbiblical.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Chris L.,
I point this out sincerely. The word you have been using is actually “eisogesis” and it is not spelled with an “i”.
It’s the inverse of exegesis: objectivism. To explain what the Scripture says. Greek, ‘to guide out of.” “ex” means “from” or “out of”
June 4th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Chris,
The problem is, if people use this idea “if you have been in the Christian life so long that you’ve forgotten what life is like when it has no hope, you need to see the film” to decide what movies to go to, there would be no end to the rubbish they could put in their mind.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
I’m saying there is such as a thing as conviction. If Chuck was convicted to not go then it’s sin, but if he wasn’t than that is between him and God.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I am going to push back on the language argument for a second. I don’t want this to be a hearted debate, nor do I make this a big issue. Here are a few things to think about
1. Which words are “bad” and which words are “good”. I mean, which words, if the come out of your mouth, make you backslidden? It all seems too subjective to me,
2. “Bad words” change about every 50 years. As they become more socially acceptable, they loose their scandalous connotation. Do we then need to keep figuring out which words are the new “bad words” so that we don’t say them?
3. What about using “bad words” properly in sentences? Sorry for the awkward example, but when you say my dog took a poop or my dog took a s—, are you not saying the same thing? Does the difference of a one-syllable word really define if someone is away from God or not?
4. What about bad words in other languages? Should we learn those so that we don’t accidentally utter them? If the actual words are the issue, then we need to do that.
5. What about “bad words” used as an adjective, thus changing the definition of the word (as recognized by culture). For example, Tony Jones used the F word to replace the word “really” in his speech. The culture in which we live knows that Jones was in no way referring to sexual activity. So at that point, are we not arguing that uttering the syllables is the sin, not the content of what we are saying?
Look, I don’t use profanity because I have a post graduate vocabulary and I enjoy the English language. But I have never understood the Christian hype of certain words that make you less that godly. Just my two cents and some things to think about. I am pretty sure that God cares about the CONTENT of your speech more than the syllables themselves.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Wow, amy. Maybe you should just move in with Ingrid.
Swindoll’s comment is akin to this ‘recommendation’ I made regarding a movie (something with John Travolta, though I blissfully forget what it was called) I went to see with my brother several years ago:
In other words - it was a backhanded ‘dis’ of the movie. But in Ingrid’s (and apparently your) humor-free and tone-deaf world, this was apparently read as a recommendation (when it was exactly the opposite).
Ken - thank you for the spelling correction, as I’ve only seen it as “iso” and not “eiso” (and years ago in OT Survey, when I first was acquainted with the word, I just had phonetics to go on, so I learned it wrong in the first place.)
June 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Nathan, you broach a subject that those who accuse seem to not want to answer. (Not you, Amy). It would seem it is ok for Ken to use foul language because he is “fighting the good fight” or because he is “one of God’s anointed teachers” but Chuck can’t. Why the difference, I’m unsure.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Ken” didn’t use foul language and thankfully he is NOT the subject of this thread.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Nathan,
Your post says much more clearly what I was trying to say. I don’t God necessarily cares about the actual words - usages and forms of language are continually changing. God looks at the heart, which is not something any human can really do. We can see the Fruit of the Spirit in people’s lives, but unfortuately we would rather quibble about our four letter words.
Personally, I think when someone resorts to swearing a lot of the time, it tends to make that person look stupid. On the other hand, I have heard people swear who are bearing great fruit for the Kingdom. I come from a very conservative background, so for a while things like that would really offend me. Now I just am content to let God deal with His people.
Also, I’ve found on a whole, it seems that American Christians are the only people who get hung up on this sort of thing. I have some friends from the Netherlands who probably would wonder why I even waste my time talking about it. Same with some of the Christians from India I know.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Nathan - I cannot understand why we want to back peddle the principle that bitter and sweet water should not come out of our mouths. If you want to make the issue nebulous about which words are “bad” then you dismantle the entire Scriptural principle. Obviously God believes ther are curse words and most of them should be easily identified.
If you want to argue over crap and other words all right, you can have those. But the main four letter words should not be defended, and we should strive to be blameless in our speech. When you get to heaven and the Lord says you could have used them will you feel cheated?
There will one day soon be nothing to separation, it will mean even less than it does today. Cursing, drinking, smoking, R-rated movies, what will we be avoiding in those days? We are engaged in a systematic redefining of all formerly accepted standards of behavior because we’ve seen legalism and hypocrisy, and probably more substantively we desire to make room for our lusts by constructing intellectual arguments that soothe the concience.
And it is not right for Ken or anybody to use foul or coarse language, so that is a straw man. Christians should speak with grace, seaoned with salt, and communication that adornes the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
SAnd since Ken did NOT “use foul or coarse language,” Rick is right, “that is a straw man.” Please feel free to continue your discussion but I believe even Chris L. will agree that I am not the subject of it and needn’t be included as such.
Thanks. And guys I’m really not that important and proud of it!
June 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Rick, I think you and I have a fundamental difference on our understanding of what we are to refrain from.
Ken, while you are not the subject of this thread, you have posted foul language and what has been defined by Ingrid as crude language. You’ve talked about urinating on people etc. I think it certainly fits in this thread.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Rick, you said:
“If you want to make the issue nebulous about which words are “bad†then you dismantle the entire Scriptural principle. Obviously God believes there are curse words and most of them should be easily identified.”
I am not wanting to dismantle a scriptural principle at all. I am trying to dismantle a religious principle that I find incorrect. Like I said in my post, there is no list of “curse words” in the scriptures. You nailed it in your post. My very conservative mother would DIE if I said the word “crap” in public, using the same reasoning you have for the big four-letter-words. I just don’t see how crap or poop are ok, but s— (having the exact same definition) suddenly becomes ungodly. My dad thinks that “sucks” is cussing. Who is right, and which words really are “curses”. Actually, it would be very hard to argue that the F word in Jones’ article is a curse, due to the grammatical usage. It is simply an adjective, replacing the word “really”. Who exactly is he cursing?
Society, not God, dictates what WORDS are “socially unacceptable” and then the religious community uses the scriptures to keep people socially acceptable. God cares about the CONTENT of what is coming out…curses, abusive speech, gossip, slander, etc.
Again, I am not arguing for the right to cuss. I personally do not. However, all throughout youth group I spent SO much time and energy trying to not cuss. Cussing was up there with sex and smoking cigarettes. Looking back, I wish I had spent more energy on the content of my speech, rather than the meaningless syllables used to form the words of my speech.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Ken talked about urinating on people? LOL! That’s hilarious.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
To his defense, dead people. He said that someone (I honestly don’t remember who–but some emergent person) was urinating on the martyrs of the reformation.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Rick,
I would agree with Nathan again. I’ve known church people who have maybe not uttered an actual swear word in their lives, but their speech is the most hateful stuff I’ve heard. The separation from the World will happen because we are passionately following Christ, not because of external religious trappings.
The other thing I would point out is that the watchdawggies take issue with one “swear” word by these different pastors, but somehow miss the whole point of what they were saying. Even Tony Jones statement, which seems to have their collective panties in a collective wad, is inherently true. The Bible is scary if we truly take it seriously.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
As I view language and what is considered ‘crude’, this seems like a place where the cultural ‘binding and loosing’ in the local church comes into effect.
On the opposite end of the scale, in the first century, the Jewish community had ‘bound’ and ‘loosed’ certain terms for God and when/where they could be spoken - so as to honor God correctly and so as to not dishonor Him by misusing his name in some way. This is why we never see Jesus refer to God as YHWH, even though he is called such in scripture.
Where this becomes problematic is, as with other localized issues (such as attire, hair, etc.), in an increasingly globalized world, what may be acceptable in one community (the word ’sucks’, for instance) may be unacceptable to another, and partially depends on the cultural context apart from the church. In America, I think it is safe to say that the ‘f-word’ is universally taboo, but in Australia it might not be. In America, the middle finger has certain connotations, but in England it is a reverse ‘peace’ sign that conveys the identical meaning. In America, we think nothing of eating with either hand, but in some Middle-Eastern countries you don’t ever use the left hand (because it is used in the restroom).
As such, I do my best to be sensitive to what I believe to be the prevailing cultural meanings of words (since I don’t think my local elders have decided what is crude speech and what is not) and erred on the side of sensitivity to communities with longer lists of words than I do (even trying to limit ‘heck’, ‘dang’, etc.) - not because I believe the words are ontologically evil, but because using them does not set me apart in my speech in a way that lifts up Christ.
Should Jones have used the ‘f-word’? I can’t think of a good reason, no.
Should Ken talk about urinating on the martyrs? I think such hyperbole is crude and vulgar, and - in that particular case - divisively unwarranted.
Should Chuck Swindoll talk about a visit to his proctologist? Honestly, I didn’t hear the show or the context (other than the partial transcript), and can think of appropriate and inappropriate usages.
In all of these cases, though, I think the speaker needs to be cognizant of the need to be ’set apart’ - in, but not of, the world. There are too many other ways of saying things for frequent crudity to be necessary. As such, we have great need to keep our speech clean - even from criticism of the nit-picky legalists who care far more about whether ‘heck’ is a swear word than whether or not Christians should work to alleviate human suffering.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Ken,
“No, what is unbelievable is that we’re discussing a very well known and, in more and more evangelical circles, well respected “Christian†leader using this kind of language about God’s Word!”
While i agree… still for you to write an article using the offensive quote showed me that you are willing to USE the same language to make your own point. You used Tony’s quote in your title which contained the word… which btw he never actually used THE word but the censored version… as even the original quote had “***” in it…
Again, Tony was wrong on that… and Phil above is right the actually point was missed.
Also, in this you seem to miss a very HUGE point. If this is Law to you… and a command, and a universal truth to live by for all time, how do you justify ever even considering what the reformers had to say?
Calvin was a murderer who killed his best friend over a minor point in T.U.L.I.P. (I know that the actual TULIP was developed later, but in Calvin’s development his friend split the community and those who disagreed with Calvin left.. Calvin gathered a war party and killed his friend. Nice guy huh?)
Luther used scatological language all the time… he talked of chasing the devil away with flatulation… using the course language as well as having “poop” in his pants and telling the devil to “wear it around his neck like rub his face with it”! And Ken, Luther did not use the word “poop”!
Along with the the Puritans gave us the “f” word… as it was an acrostic for “For unlawful carnal knowledge” and people who were put in the stocks had rotten veggies and fruit tossed at them and the people would shout, “f’er” at them…
So, as you condemn others for inappropriate language you also condemn people who changed the course of Christian history…
Again, Ken I agree it was inappropriate… and it is offensive. yet I see it as offensive not as you are saying it is… but that weaker people of faith may stumble thinking that it is fine to be like the “world” in that sense. But, I also see that even in the Bible, there are things in Hebrew that we would see as offensive and so as far as being crude, base and living life that way, you are right and if Tony lived out his life swearing and fornicating and whatever else comes with “course” living, then you have a case… right now you have a case of bad judgment… and that is all.
I think if you have read Ezekiel, there are passages I do not want to explain to my young kids… I think there is a lot of “adult only” things in the Bible and God pulled no punches in what his message was. You however seem to want to sanitize everything to a “g” rating… and in that miss that we must then reject much the Bible states of the human condition.
Blessings,
iggy
June 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Chris,
Swindoll was recommending the movie to those who have been immersed in Christianity so long that they have forgotten what “hopelessness” means. He says,”And if you have been in the Christian life so long that you’ve forgotten what life is like when it has no hope. You need to see the film. It is as pointless and meaningless and empty and torturous as you can imagine and then some because you get to a grave and even that is futile and the credits roll.â€
Henry said, “We are engaged in a systematic redefining of all formerly accepted standards of behavior because we’ve seen legalism and hypocrisy, and probably more substantively we desire to make room for our lusts by constructing intellectual arguments that soothe the concience.”
I was once in a situation in which I was a guest in a former pastor’s home. A movie was put on and I thought it was pretty questionable for anyone to be watching, especially the four guys in the room. When one of the ladies in the film was suddenly topless, I left the room. The former pastor laughed at me, implying that something was wrong with me, that I couldn’t “take it.”
Convicted, Joe? Apparently the men in that room weren’t convicted. And I found it hard to believe that their thoughts were pure while watching the movie (and if they were somehow pure, then I wonder what else they’d been watching to make a topless woman seem like nothing.) Gradual acceptance of that which can harm one’s walk with Christ leads to hardening of the heart - there will be less and less conviction. Men will act as if stuff doesn’t really bother them; the reality is that even if something they see doesn’t bother them at one point, it’s there, stuck in their mind, free to come back at any time.
People need principles to live by, and they need to feel free to walk away from things and not be attacked by other Christians for doing so. And people need to be able to speak out about what they think without being labeled “legalistic” and “judgemental.” The reality is that plenty of “judgements” are being made about things, judgements that deem many things as absolutely acceptable and not to be questioned.
One of the men that was in the situation I just described just happens to go to Swindoll’s church. I can’t help but think of the situation I described above when I hear Swindoll’s way of talking about this movie - there’s a lack of regard for principles, a lack of regard for what he’s essentially “teaching” by his approach to this movie. The issue isn’t always whether one “feels” convicted.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
As far as language goes, it seems like effort should be put into thinking about what “coarse jesting” and “impure speech” means, and how to avoid it, instead of looking for ways to be “cultural” and “real.”
June 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Or maybe they were convicted but didn’t do anything about it. Either way, I’m not sure how that compares to unforgiven or his talking about his proctologist.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Iggy, my understanding is that the “F” word actually originated in England for “Fornication Under Consent of the King” and the puritans changed it a few hundred years later. If someone has this consent they were “f-ing”
June 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Amy you said, “Convicted Joe?” Were you asking me if I was convicted? And if so, of what?
June 4th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Amy,
I don’t think anyone here is going to say as a rule it is good for Christians to swear, watch R-rated movies with topless women, etc. I think what we are talking about is the sanctimonious way in which these things are pointed out. The thing is, Christ never lets us make it about other people’s sin. He wants us to do with our sins. The fact is we may be able to control people’s behavior to some extent, but only Christ can change their hearts.
As far the original topic in this post, I don’t really care what happens on Christian radio. Ingrid could have fired Swindoll because of the color of his shirt for all I care. The fact that she felt the need to justify it by the reasons she gave tells me a lot about the audience she is trying to reach. Apparently sanctimony still sells well enough to make some money.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Phil and Iggy, you use the obvious inconsistencies in others to justify using vulgar language? How does that work? If I say you shouldn’t curse everyone runs to obscure and question the meaning of cursing, even the f word. What an eye opener here.
I would have thought that no matter how sinful Calvin or Luther or MacArthur or anyone else was, we ALL would agree no one should use the f word, at least. But instead you give an etimology of the word and use others sins to call into question the Scriptural sinfulness of using that word. No matter who invented the word it is now understood by man and beast to be a vile and disgusting curse word. If that word can be used then anything is permissable especially if others who don’t are hypocrites and if the origin of the word was somewhat softer than understood in today’s parlance.
Just because Ingrid banned Swindoll, is that any reason for defending and minimizing people who use the f word? Wow, I have been awakened, I live in a dream world. I never in a thousand years would have thought that people who you describe as passionately pursuing Christ could also use any language they desired.
I am a dinosaur…and glad to be one.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Amy,
It is sad that you have no sense for sarcasm (at least in the written form), because if you did, you would recognize that Swindoll was recommending the movie to NOBODY.
I suspect that in verbal form (as this was delivered - noting that Ingrid put a period after hope, when it should have been a comma deliniating the “if” clause from the implied “then”), the sarcasm would have been more obvious. The “if” statement was defined in such a way that nobody would/could put themselves into that class. What person is going to consider themselves “in the Christian life so long that you’ve forgotten what life is like when it has no hope”? Unfortunately, Mr. Swindoll forgot that Christians, sadly, tend to be the most literal-minded, humorless lot on the planet and might not understand sarcastic or less-than-literal communication - case in point…
June 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Henry,
I agree that our speech must be of a higher caliber than the world around us. I read some of Iggy & phil’s comments as pointing out hypocrisy on the part of certain writers who comment on others’ language while engaging in similar behavior. I disagree that there is any NEED for a Christian to engage in coarse talk, which is a bone of contention I have with a number of emergent (though not as many emerging) figures. It does not make one relevant, it makes one display irrelevance of Christ in their walk…
June 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Rick,
I’m not defending anyone. My point is that it is easy to sit and find sin in others, when I have plenty of sin of my own to worry about. I am hesitant even to point out the obvious flaws of the watchdawggies, lest I fall into the same trap of pointing out specks.
Do I think that Jones, Swindoll and other were wise in their choices? No, probably not. Does that mean I need to point it out to everyone I know?
Personally, I try to avoid swearing and vulgar language as much as possible. Like Chris L pointed out earlier, you can probably make any point you need to make without resorting to cursing.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Rick,
I would say that it has less to do with being a dinosaur and more to do with being indoctrinated with a man-made theology. If you can honestly answer and look at the questions I posed, I think you would see where I am coming from. This is a classic case of the church making social rules into biblical rules. It happens all the time. The only reason why we should refrain from using certain words is because it is socially awkward. It has little to do with spirituality.
By the way gentlemen, the f-word has many urban legend etymologies. It actually has German and Swedish roots, and was originally used as a synonym for sex.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“The only reason why we should refrain from using certain words is because it is socially awkward.”
So the Scriptures are irrelevant? Again I ask, what does the etymology of the word have anything to do with the accepted meaning today? I reiterate, if the f word is OK, then everything is within acceptable parameters. I doubt whether any of us would use the f word in front of our Savior, and if you feel comfortable in that, then it is a different Savior than I invision.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Nathan,
This is where I will disagree (somewhat) with you. This is not so much “making a social rule into a biblical rule” as it is interpreting an actual biblical rule (purity in speach) in an environment where local culture may differ from global culture. It deals directly with one’s witness to those around him or her. Our language reflects our hearts, and when we use coarse language around non-believers, it suggests that our claims of belief have no impact on our speech and action and that our claim to Christ is purely superficial.
Do we have the freedom to use any words in existence in their proper context? Yes. Is it wise to exercise that freedom? Not really - this is part of that ‘dying to self’ thing we like to talk about a whole lot more than we like to practice…
June 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Chris,
I think you hit the nail on the head. I would tend to think of it in terms of the “all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial” idea articulated in Galations. We have freedom in Christ, but the whole point of that freedom is to serve Christ and others.
I think the thing with legalism is that it is a double-edged sword. It causes death to people who are in it, but it also seems to cause people to run away from it who end up abusing their newfound freedom. I would venture that a lot of people who are associated with “Emergent” churches have been hurt by legalism in the past, and that is why they are in a way, flaunting their freedom.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“I would venture that a lot of people who are associated with “Emergent†churches have been hurt by legalism in the past, and that is why they are in a way, flaunting their freedom. ”
I would agree. But isn’t their behavior that is reactionary the same thing they despise in people like Ingrid? A person can point out error in others while remaining blind to their own, and conversely a person can exhibit a “take this” behavior without seeing that they grieve the Spirit?
Even some unbelievers don’t feel the need for profanity but believers have to curse because they can and still be saved? No matter how varied our spiritual journeys our language should reflect the sweet water of the Spirit. Or if people disagree with that Scriptural exhortation perhaps that defines the different journeys.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Rick,
I agree totally. Reactionism is always dangerous. Actually, Ingrid was complaining about a Brian McClaren article in Christianity Today that was talking about this very thing. I actually thought the article was very good. I don’t have the time to post a link right now, but if you look at Slice it should still be up there.
Like I’ve said before, I will leave it to the Lord to decide who is and isn’t saved. I do believe God is gracious and patient, and that I do appreciate the exhortations from people who love me. I think that if Christian are genuinely interested in pleasing God, these secondary issues will kind of fall away because people will be using their freedom to serve rather than to be selfish.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Joe,
I wasn’t asking if you were convicted, rather referring to your comment on convictions. I think you assume that Christians will be convicted if they’re in a situation that they shouldn’t be in. That’s what my illustration about the topless woman movie illustrated, that sometimes people aren’t. And even if, in that case, they were but did nothing about it, there are so many more examples of people watching things that can only hurt their walk with Christ. It’s just a “normal” lifestyle for many Christians. When Christians leaders in any way promote that lack of discernment, it can only do more harm. I imagine in many cases that Christians decide that the “conviction” that they used to feel about certain things, was simply “legalism.” They can feel justified about no longer being convicted, because, hey, Pastor Mike watches that sort of thing, etc, etc.
Chris, you are free to assume that Swindoll was being sarcastic, from the written presentation that Ingrid gave. I can’t assume that at all, anymore than I can assume that Warren was making a joke when he said he was Murdoch’s pastor.
I happen to have a great sense of humor. I would admit that having a pastor introduce going to a movie for the reasons that he did would put me in a serious mood, not a humorous mood, so I might miss any future humor on the topic.
I’m willing to admit that there may be sarcasm, and that I might have missed it. That doesn’t change anything I’ve said about the issue except that I would say he wasn’t recommending the movie if it were sarcasm. I would still have concerns about his talking about going to see this for the reasons he did and talking about staying there, etc, with no question about whether or not that was the right thing to do.
There are plenty of Christians who don’t realize how bad, hopeless, life is for many people . . . .
You state that Swindoll’s recommedation is sarcasm as if it is fact instead of opinion. That along with your negative assumptions/sweeping judgements about my own viewpoints, such as “Wow, amy. Maybe you should just move in with Ingrid,” the negative comments relating to a lack of sense of humor, etc or of no benefit to this conversation.
I suggest that you could learn something by studying the tone of Ken’s comment to you regarding the spelling correction.
June 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Rick,
I am not justifying the use of the word… as I stated I told Tony that it was inappropriate… but the point is that to judge him as Ken has instead of looking at it and then going to let him know it was not helpful for the cause would have been better.
To judge and condemn Tony as Ken did also condemned others that he and others often hold up as Godly men… and that was my point. That we are all sinners and have rough edges… and to sit in judgment on one for their rough edges or immaturity shows a lack of grace, mercy and love to those around them.
That is why I state over and over that “fruit” of the Spirit is not ours… it is Gods… for only God is good and He is the Good Tree that bears good fruit… our fruit will always stink and be rotten. If one then holds his own rotting fruit up as better than the others rotting fruit that is just stupid! I will never soft sell that.
I do think that as you and Phil stated many have been hurt by legalism… and many have found grace and are LEARNING to walk in it appropriately. That will include mistakes. Yet, to judge and condemn someone for a mistake… is ignoring that we too have faults and issues.
The use of the “f” word may not be appropriate… yet if you have ever sat with someone who was gravely hurt and in emotional pain… and they were working through it, would you shut them down if they tossed out the “F” bomb? I hope not as some of the greatest breakthroughs in peoples lives I have seen was as they were broken, they swore and expressed their anger at God and Christians… only to fall at the feet of Jesus and be restored. If I had shut them down they would have walked away and never fell at Jesus feet… I would have been like everyone else and they would not have received it… again I am talking in the context of extreme emotional pain.
Now, have I firmly asked or told others to refrain from using foul language around myself or my wife and kids… YES!!! Not out of judgment, but out of common decency. I point out that it is a public place and they are free to say what the want… but please keep in mind that many are offended and I am sure the restaurant owner (or whatever) does not want to lose business because you choose to swear. In most cases I try to tactful and respectful and they respond in like… and stop… if not I have just left and told the owner I would not be back if this was not a “family” restaurant. Almost always they apologize and we have found the place nicer the next time… but again it was done with respect for the other.
I agree that some have taken their freedom and used it selfishly… but again, that is part of the learning process… but it is a glorious thing to once be in bondage to legalism and then be released! Grace is powerful and I see that most the time people come around to see that some things are not beneficial.
Blessings,
iggy
June 4th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Amy, you’re right I do assume that the Holy Spirit will convict those that are sinning. If He does not there is nothing I can do to convince them they are wrong.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position
June 4th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Iggy - I almost never correct an unbeliever for bad language, it is like straightening the tie on a corpse. And if a believer in a state such as you outline uses foul language, that is where grace comes in. And can we remove Ingrid and Ken from the conversation, their agenda is their own.
The Biblical madate and command is clear, we should not use foul language in our conversation, not because of “man made religion” as Nathan suggests, but because we belong to our Gracious Master and it is He who lives through us. It is such a neon sign how convoluted we have become.
One side enjoys the ministry of judgment and relishes in their stone throwing from high atop their own ivory tower, the other side feels the brunt of those stones and therefore is deceived into turning from the obvious teachings from the Master Himself, all to prove their freedom and to expose the hypocrisy of others.
And in the end we end up with a caricature of the Risen Christ and not the true, life giving presence of Jesus that emits a supernatural fragrence to those who so desperately need Him. The only reason I don’t curse is Christ; the only reason I do not get drunk is Christ; the only reason I don’t do drugs is Christ; the only reason I don’t rob banks is Christ. (see my testimony)
I have no claim but Him and Him alone, no strength and no good intentions, but I cannot deny Him by my works. I will not deny that He has changed me, and I am able to curse all I want, I never want to because of His presence within me. Can I just pause and praise His matchless Name, One who has condescended to scoop up such a sinner like me and make me His child. I will never be the same, I will never speak the same, I will never think the same, and although I am not what I could or even should be, PRAISE JESUS I’M NOT WHAT I ONCE WAS!!!!!
Excuse me brothers, I just got caught up in Him. I should have more of those episodes that point it all to Him because in the very final analysis, it is not me but Christ that lives in me. I wish I could be more like Him, perhaps His patience and my pursuit will one day marry.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I don’t want to make this a long drawn out debate. Rick, I do believe the scriptures are incredibly relevant. In fact, I think that Christians fall WAY too short in the area of speech. I just do not see the scriptures concerned about a set of words that change from era to era and culture to culture. In 20 years I can almost guarantee you that a new set of foul words will replace the ones we have today. And, some of the “bad words” we have today will be common language tomorrow. And it isn’t because we are becoming more sinful, it is because language changes all the time
I see the scripture focusing on the the content of what you are saying. If your heart is evil, your mouth will speak evil. Slander, gossip, lies and hateful language seem to be the focus, not individual words.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Joe,
“Amy, you’re right I do assume that the Holy Spirit will convict those that are sinning. If He does not there is nothing I can do to convince them they are wrong.”
Christians can always speak scripture to Christians who are sinning. God can use that. There are times in my life when I chose to ignore the Holy Spirit, practically convincing myself that the wrong I was doing was right. I WAS hearing from other Christians what suited me - that what I was doing was okay, or not that bad. It would have helped me immensely if a fellow Christian had spoken the truth of scripture to me to try to convince me I was wrong.
God uses people to help each other. Paul wrote much of what he wrote in the epistles to point out to Christians the error of their sin. Those scriptures are there for us to share with Christians who aren’t walking with God. Even if they may seem to reject those scriptures, the scriptures may come back to the person at a time when they are willing to accept them.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Nathan says, “And it isn’t because we are becoming more sinful, it is because language changes all the time”
Yes language changes. And language often changes because of social factors. And the social factor that seems to be affecting the use of “cuss” words for Christians is that some Christians are choosing to “make” certain words acceptable, that aren’t even allowed in some public schools.
Isn’t it a sin to treat scriptures about “coarse jesting” and purity of speech as if they have no relevance for today?
My husband and I both remember a time in our lives when we thought it would be so cool to have a foul mouth. We were both in junior high at the time.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“My husband and I both remember a time in our lives when we thought it would be so cool to have a foul mouth. We were both in junior high at the time.”
Made me laugh right out loud!
June 4th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Very true Amy, all I was saying is that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts. I saw Unforgiven when I was in High School or College (either way a long time ago) so I don’t remember it that well. I just believe there has to be some room for convictions. I don’t remember any naked people in this movie but like I said, it was a long time ago
June 5th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Amy, does “coarse jesting’ include Ken ’s sarcastic retorts and cutting invective which adorns his website and his comments?
June 5th, 2007 at 12:14 am
i’m really over people assuming a certain level of maturity is necessarily not present in a person who uses certain terms.
When I use them, I use them intentionally, with purpose and to convey a particular force of emotion along with whatever point I’m making. It’s not all the time, gratuitous or indulgent. That is a rational, clear eyed decision. You can call it rebellion, but you don’t know my heart or my situation. So if you’re convinced it’s wrong, then get off your high horse and pray for me and be my friend. Even if you’re right, you’re not God and the scolding tone and the attitude of “swearing” being such a deal breaker really is overblown, self-righteous and pretentious.
If you’re right and show the humility of Christ, that’ll get a lot more traction with me because it will show you care about me being like Christ, not feeling powerful because you can win an argument….Now THAT is immature.
And to say it’s because I have a limited vocabulary is just silly.
Words can carry force and certain so-called cuss words can be useful. I’m not sorry about it and I’m not sorry to use it strategically and within certain contexts.
The forbidding of “filthy speech” is given within the context of instructions on the communal life of the Church. It is contrasted with that which “builds up”. Just because your sensibilities are tweaked doesn’t necessarily mean this verse has been contravened. It just doesn’t.
To me this means certain terms to degrade others is where this verse comes into play. It’s not a carte blance prohibition against whatever terms happen to be considered offensive by any particular sub-culture within our nation. It’s not about the terms themselves, but clearly from the biblical setting, it is about the use of certain terms within certain contexts and with certain audiences. This strikes me as common sense between the directives found in Ephesians and the undeniable historical FACT of the contingency of language.
For crying out loud…the PURITANS used the F word. It just goes to show that it’s not because people are choosing to make something acceptable that never was. This thread has already demonstrated that certain terms were actually NOT considered out of bounds for Christians even within the last 250 years. It’s ironic that “giving in to the culture” is the charge when a particular era’s moralistic outlook is being enshrined as the only way to biblically interpret christian living.
That’s not “giving in to the culture”…
Ultimately,