Everything That's On My Mind

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

There’s been a bit of a firestorm in the Godblogsphere (who invented that term, anyway?) in the past few days. The spark seems to have been Mark Driscoll’s new book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev and Tim Challies review of that book. I haven’t read the book, but I have seen a few of the quotes that people are up in arms about. I’ve read other things Driscoll has written and he certainly doesn’t mince words. He has gone a bit overboard a time or two, IMHO. However, one could probably say the same about the apostle Paul. The question seems to be, how blunt is too blunt? Where do we draw the line on language? What qualifies as “unwholesome talk” or “obscenity” and what doesn’t?

Just how blunt was Paul? There are those who persuasively argue that Paul’s language was “colorful” by modern standards. I’m no Greek scholar, so I won’t weigh in on that question. In truth, even the scholars are guessing anyway. There’s no way for us to go back and determine exactly how Paul’s original audience would have reacted to his language. Even if we could, it’s not that helpful. Language is constantly changing, and it is totally dependent on the culture in which it is used. The same language is interpreted differently in different regions, or even by different people in the same region. What is considered coarse language by some is normal speech for others.

For example, the British slang term for a cigarette is a very inflammatory term here in the States. I could probably use the word “darn” in a Sunday sermon and no one would blink an eye, but change one letter and I would probably hear a few gasps…even though they essentially synonymous. The same comparison could be made between the words “poop” or “crap”* and Tony Campolo’s famous scatological expletive. I remember hearing Campolo’s “You Don’t Give A ____!” sermon in person as a young man. There were certainly a few gasps around me, but that was the intended effect. Was it effective use of language or simply gratuitous vulgarity? I suppose it depends on who you ask. I wasn’t offended, but I’m sure there are those who were.

As usual, I find myself in the middle between extremes on this topic. Am I going to use any of George Carlin’s “Seven Dirty Words” in a Sunday sermon? No. Are certain four letter words automatically a sin to utter? Not necessarily. Are we free as Christians to use any language device in any situation? Of course not. Should we judge each other’s faith based solely on our use of language? I won’t even dignify that question with a response. Christians do far too much judging as it is.

I don’t believe there is a universal list of “bad words” we need to avoid. Words convey meaning, and it is the meaning that matters. I can easily engage in “unwholesome talk” without using any questionable euphemisms whatsoever. On the other hand, I will admit that in private conversations with friends I have occasionally used “colorful metaphors” to accurately convey my meaning and I don’t believe I crossed the “unwholesome talk” threshold. I believe the answer is found in this: “If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.” (James 1:26 NIV) Our language should not be our master, but we should always be the master of it. Any word used carelessly can be harmful, especially words spoken in anger and without self-control. Our words should always be carefully chosen, “full of grace, seasoned with salt.” Not enough salt and the food is bland and unmemorable, too much salt and the food too harsh for the palate.

*I wouldn’t be surprised if some of my readers may even find this term offensive, but that just proves my point. The KJV contains the word “piss” in a number of verses (don't follow that link if you're sensitive to crude language), but you wouldn’t believe (or maybe you would) the reaction I got when as a young man I used that term in front of my pastor.

Culture

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 09:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Comments [5]

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:20:58 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

You know, it's sh*&^% posts like this that p^%# me off. I don't know why the h%?? I read your blog anyway - it's not as if I give a F+@& about your or your &^%@#$&%!#$% &@#%$&^@%#&^$% @#$&^@#%&$^%# thoughts... !*$*!@($ ^!@^$*!&@^$*!&@^$*&!@*$^!@$^ !*7@^$*@!$*!^*@$ &^!@$^&*!^$*&!^$&^@* &^!@*&$^!@ $^&!^$@&$^*

Bobert

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:21:27 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

BTW, just kidding - you know I LOVE you, man...

Bobert

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:22:05 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I was mainly offended by your use of the term, "Godblogsphere." Of all the self-important terms! It's my one serious objection to Cerulean Sanctum. And I never thought you would sink so low.

Now all my illusions are shattered.

Keith

Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:22:28 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

So what should I call it? The "Blogdom of God"? The "Community of Christian Bloggers"? The "X-Bloggers"? The "Cabal of Self-obsorbed Part-time Theologians"?

Sheesh, some people you just can't please. ;-)

Pastor Bob

Thursday, May 25, 2006 8:22:59 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I kind of like "Cabal of Self-absorbed Part-time Theologians."

Of course, it all depends on the context. ;-)

Keith

Name
E-mail	(will show your gravatar icon)
Home page

	Remember Me
Comment (Some html is allowed: `a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u`) where the @ means "attribute." For example, you can use <a href="" title=""> or <blockquote cite="Scott">.
Enter the code shown (prevents robots):
Live Comment Preview

On this page...

May 2006

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Everything That's On My Mind

On this page...

Categories