If we accept any calling lower than this, we haven't taken seriously our unique position as artists to push back the effects of the fall and to build the Kingdom coming, where all these things are made right.

If I don't use profanity, how else am I to convince you of the glories of the kingdom?

Indeed.

I liked that paragraph as well. There is such nobility in being a potty-mouth!

We're marching to Zion...

Just when you thought that the American evangelicalism had reached its lowest ebb . . .

The discussion regarding the acceptance of cussing in Christian circles is troubling. I asked a Christian student about this; he responded that his generation doesn't perceive that non-believers are bothered by it, and thus the contemporary Christian witness is not harmed. So neither should the Christian be bothered. In fact, cussing enhances the witness, and this is a valid method of evangelism because one is being "real and relevant."

And those old-fashioned believers who object should "just grow up," my friend said.

Yes, these reflective 20-year-olds bear such wisdom, we should all surely listen! It is easy to mock, but the truly disturbing thing is that this teaching is advanced by 35 and 40-year-olds like Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll and Tony Jones, all emergent "leaders." One can justify anything by means of smooth talk gussied up in Christian terms.

The “Christian community” has lost all credibility with me.

Look at how your student was thinking:

His generation [rejecting the considered opinion of other generations] perceives [treating profanity as nothing more than a matter of perception] profanity as something non-believers aren’t bothered by [making the unregenerate the standard of propriety], so their testimony is not harmed [an absence of holiness and obedience to Scripture is not perceived as an obstacle to witness]. Therefore the Christian should not be “bothered”.

What a moral argument!

Just wait until the next "Today's Emerging Bible Translation" comes out, complete with a lack of sensorship, r-rated language, descriptive immorality, etc. etc. etc. . . . Seriously, when I'm working at my secular work place (warehouse setting), the majority of the people "cuss" on a normal basis. Yet my lack of cussing is actual noticed and respected becuase there is something different. We have some people there who claim to be Christians, but can and do cuss with the worst of 'em. But the infidel knows the difference.

Yes, emergents may take "cussing" to one extreme, but fundy fruitcakes take it to another. Consider these examples of Christian blasphemy culled from the annals of orthodox purity. Surely these are searing examples of gross impiety, minced oaths, and carnal profanity, no?

Under the heading "Are You Taking God's Name in Vain?" one fundy wrote the following. His logic is inescapable.

1. You say, "Well, my word! I wouldn't take God's name in vain!" You just did! John 1:1 says that "the Word" was GOD! Satan tricked you, didn't he? You need to CONFESS to God that you've been taking His name in vain, and you need to REPENT of this sin!

2. "Well, my goodness!", you say. If you are saved then your "goodness" is none other than God Himself (Psalm 144:2). You just took His name in vain again. You have no goodness of your own (Isa. 64:6; Rom. 3:23; Psa. 39:5), so "my goodness" is a reference to God!

3. "Good grief! I had no idea!" There you go again! Jesus Christ was a man of sorrows and acquainted with GRIEF (Isa. 53:3). His grief was "good" grief because He bore your sins. You should show more reverence and respect for your Saviour and quit throwing God's word around too loosely.

4. "For crying out loud! Can't I say anything?" How about reading your Bible for a change?! Matthew 27:46 says that when your Saviour was suffering on the cross He "cried with a loud voice." What's your logic in using such speech? Could it be that Satan is just having a good laugh at your ignorance and disrespect of God's word?

5. "Well, geeeeeeee!" Did you say "G", as in "GOD"? Yes, you certainly did! You've also said "Gosh" and "Good Golly"! You've also said "Jeepers Creepers" when you really wanted to say "Jesus Christ" (JC!). You've also played around with the letters "G" and "D" together. You said "dad gum" and "dog gone" when you really wanted to say "God" and then follow with the word "damn". Think about it, Christian! Is God pleased with this kind of speech?

Those Four-Letter Words!

You probably wouldn't think of using the word "damn" too loosely, but what about "darn" and "dang"? Do they not serve the same purpose? Is Satan not pleased to fill your mouth with such speech?

6. "Why, heck!" Look out there! God knows your heart, and he knows you really wanted to say "hell".
Down south folks say, "Ah, shoot!" This is nothing more than a cheap way of saying "s " Again I ask, is God pleased with this sort of speech? Is this "sound speech, that cannot be condemned"? I think not!

Swear Not!

"But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Mat. 5:34-37)

Jesus said "swear not," yet God's people swear all the time! Such expressions as "for Heaven's sake", "for Pete's sake", and "Heavens to Betsy" are attempts to swear by Bible subjects, which shows disrespect toward God. God's word is PURE and HOLY! We should HONOR His words, not throw them around like a dirty dish rag!

xarisumin:

Of course.

And everyone knows it. This defense is not even plausible; Russ's rationale for profanity would apply just as well to blasphemy.

But it is worth noting that a line has been crossed: it is one thing to commit a sin, it is another to defend it.

am i missing something? maybe i completely misread the article, but "dimwit" Russ Breimeier came to the conclusion that foul language WASN'T appropriate. i assume that is your position as well. so... you're upset that he talked about it? or that he logically argued against foul language instead of resorting to calling them dimwits?

Hello, Jim:

Let me go back and review my notes and see where I fell off the beam here.

This is what Russ said (not just about using foul language) but using foul language in Christian music.

In a recent online poll at Christian Music Today, 64 percent of voters feel that profanity is always inappropriate in the music they listen to, while 29 percent said it depends on the context, and another 6 percent are completely unfazed by profanity. Obviously it's fodder for debate.

While artists like these are certainly influential to the Christian music genre, they're not necessarily representative of it...

He quotes Webb,

"I believe that strong and even offensive language is not only useful, but oftentimes necessary when proclaiming the whole truth. But [as artists], we must risk all, including reputation and commercial ruin, to tell the whole truth. If we accept any calling lower than this, we haven't taken seriously our unique position as artists to push back the effects of the fall and to build the Kingdom coming, where all these things are made right."

and then offers this judgment: “That thinking seems justified in defense of strong language with specific meaning that drives home biblical truths.”

I quote more of Russ:

One problem with profanity is that not everyone agrees on what it is.

Some would argue that using profanity is simply an artist's right to self-expression. I respect that right; we live in a land that values the right to free speech, after all.

Artists are playing with fire when they choose to use profanity in songwriting. In a politically correct society where we're all required to be mindful of what we say concerning race, gender, politics, and religion, it seems strange that a songwriter would choose to risk radio airplay and fan support by using words that have the potential to offend so many.

Perhaps we can learn most from repeated New Testament warnings to avoid causing angst for our brothers and sisters—to be sensitive and mindful of their needs...

Still, I do believe that careful, strong wording is acceptable and effective in getting a point across.

Yes, there are times where strong language is warranted in songwriting to boldly communicate our faith and scriptural teachings.

But as far as profanity goes, I ultimately have to throw a strong word back at it: unnecessary.


The Apostle Paul told us not to talk this way. Ever. Twenty-nine percent of polled people said it was acceptable depending on the context; six percent didn’t care: any context justified it. Was this the logical argument you were referring to?

Russ concedes that potty-mouth Christian artists are influential but, he says, not representative. If foul-mouthed singers are only influential, is it ok until they become representative?

“Obviously it’s fodder for debate.” Was that the logical argument against being a potty-mouth? If something is fodder for debate, does that make it acceptable?

Everyone can’t agree on what profanity is; does that make it right? If we can’t agree on what constitutes pornography, does that give us a right to use it? What about murder? Is it always wrong to lynch a black? This question too has been debated for some time now. Was that the logical argument you found in Russ’s piece?

“Some would argue that using profanity is simply an artist's right to self-expression.” Does St. Paul argue that? Does any other Apostle argue that?

Russ finds it strange, not that Christian artists would disobey scripture but that they would risk airtime and fan support? Is that an argument against foul speech?

Logically?

Does the New Testament argue that we should not do bad things because they might offend people or that we should not do bad things because they are bad? Or does not the New Testament say we should not do innocent things if they cause one to stumble? What is the logic here?

Russ insists that “strong wording is acceptable and effective in getting a point across” and “there are times where strong language is warranted in songwriting to boldly communicate our faith and scriptural teachings”.

Notice how he’s subtly changed the subject from what he coyly calls the “f-bomb”. Is he still talking about f-bombs or merely strong language? Let’s cast Russ’s argument more accurately:

“Dropping the f-bomb is acceptable and effective in getting a point across” and “there are times where dropping the f-bomb is warranted in songwriting to boldly communicate our faith and scriptural teachings”...what about “driving home scriptural truths with the f-bomb”?

The strongest Russ gets on the question of using the f-bomb is not to call it disobedience to scripture, but “unnecessary”.

Isn’t that cute?

The one thing I am certain of is that Russ is not being logical.

What I’m not certain of is whether you are being honest with me.

I object strongly to this dim-witted rationalization because I have seen the consequences of it. We used to argue against the theater the same way. Soon the “f-bomb” will be as ubiquitous in the church as the theater is now.

Won’t that be grand?

you seem to have a problem with confusing Russ's position with the position of the people polled and the artists.

"The Apostle Paul told us not to talk this way. Ever. Twenty-nine percent of polled people said it was acceptable depending on the context; six percent didn’t care: any context justified it. Was this the logical argument you were referring to?"

no. the argument i was referring to was Russ's, not the positions of those polled.

"Russ concedes that potty-mouth Christian artists are influential but, he says, not representative. If foul-mouthed singers are only influential, is it ok until they become representative?"

again, he never said that it was ok as long as they were influential. he simply stated a fact. i guess you misunderstood him to imply that he thought it was okay for them to use foul language as long as they were only influential. thats not how it appeared to me at all.

"Obviously it’s fodder for debate. Was that the logical argument against being a potty-mouth? If something is fodder for debate, does that make it acceptable?

umm... no. and if you think hes saying that it is, then, again, i think you completely misunderstood him. im giving you the benefit of the doubt when i say misunderstood. he just quoted a statistic stating that a surprising number of people thought foul language was appropriate in a certain context or at any time. so obviously a lot of people hold different positions on the issue. so he's saying that because of the widely varying positions on the issue, he thinks its something that should be addressed. "fodder for debate." thats how it appears to me anyway.

"Some would argue that using profanity is simply an artist's right to self-expression. Does St. Paul argue that? Does any other Apostle argue that?"

sigh. again, no. and neither does he. he says that he respects the right that artists have to free speech by virtue of the constitution of the country we live in, but that that doesn't mean he has to listen to it. his stated position is exactly opposite to what you imply it to be.

"Russ finds it strange, not that Christian artists would disobey scripture but that they would risk airtime and fan support? Is that an argument against foul speech? Logically?"

hes expressing surprise that artists would use foul language and in so doing, at the very least, risk fan support and airplay. hes not saying that that should be their only motivation. this is obvious because he in fact examines their legitimacy against scripture in the next paragraph.

listen, i dont have time to deal with the rest of your response, but i suspect you to be making the same errors as you are in the first half. i still dont understand why you would argue against an article that holds the same position you do: that artists shouldnt use foul language.

And this is your idea of logic?

I think I've spotted the problem.

i tell you what, you really debunked my whole response there with that little quip. it reduced me nearly to tears.

you remind me why i stopped following these blogs addicted to bickering. dont expect any more responses from me.

The pleasure will be all mine.

Not "all" : )

Russ's argument is against the use of profanity. From what I can tell after a 2nd reading, the rationalizations in his article are quotations from others or his own summary of someone else's position that he then critiques. The closest to a rationalization of his own is his tracing of the use of profanity by "quasi-Christian" artists who have apparently influenced some Christian artists.

Whether Russ's arguments against the rationalizations he cites are any good is a different matter. Part of his discussion regarding "correct use" of certain words is actually quite similar to C.S. Lewis's defense of his expression "damned nonsense" in Mere Christianity. He cites some Scripture, but lets his primary emphasis rest on the woefully inadequate argument that Christians should avoid profanity b/c it could be misunderstood or offend someone. Particularly a fan!

Russ's concluding statement is awful; profanity in lyrics is way more than "unnecessary"; it's sin.

"Christians" who defend profanity’s role for shocking people into hearing the truth are too busy avoiding truth to be sincerely concerned with its dissemination. Maybe they would pay attention if we swore at them while we quoted St. Paul?

Jim--you're not the only one who has observed that reading comprehension and civility are not exactly the strong suit for some members here.

If you dare to challenge a post, you'll usually receive a reply, followed by other replies if you push your point, and sometimes finally a sneer (followed by cute quips from hoi polloi cheering their champion). You may be called silly, dishonest, theologically uneducated, and a few other choice things I've forgotten. You can observe this pattern on several of these threads. Sometimes even agreeing with a post or comment is met with the strangest of criticisms.

The Christian love in the echo chamber called Remonstrans is not for the faint of heart, that's for sure...

I feel a stampede approaching...

Well, I think jim’s been victimized by the binary solution set. Either/or: everything from the slightest possible objection to spittle-launching vituperation counts as one negative vote.

Russ Breirmeier is doing what CT invariably does. It takes an issue and collects various “perspectives” without respect to cogency or relevance, presents them in a kind of deferential grab-bag of possible positions one might hold, and lets the reader conclude whatever he wants.

Nowhere does Breimeier ever say it is wrong to use the “f-bomb”. The closest he comes is to saying it is “unnecessary”, even after he has offered testimony and rationalization for why many justify it on the grounds that it “is warranted”. If Russ wanted to distinguish between the “unnecessary f-bomb” and the “warrant for strong language”, I think his whole column is a spectacular failure.

But however dimwitted Russ’s conclusion might be, jim’s point was that Russ had offered a logical argument. My reply to jim is that the one thing Russ is not is logical. There is no logic in there. It is the old evangelical barn dance. Hook your partner’s elbow and doh-see-doh. Let’s pretend we struggled with a real moral dilemma and part as friends.

I believe that profanity is a sin for the Christian and wrong for everybody, and that is not the same as believing it is unnecessary.

It ain’t rocket science.

Dissidens,

Shouldn't we draw a more careful distinction between profanity--the misuse of holy things, and vulgarity--the street level crudities of the great unwashed?

I have a hard time calling "pisseth" a profanity, but I can see it as a vulgarity, even a Biblical one.

I don't want to justify either, much less poor speech, but there seems to be a differnce between a gutterism and blasphemy.

I'm sure I'm missing something here. What is it?

tjp:

Oh, certainly. No doubt about it.

There are legitimate distinctions to be made between blasphemy, profanity and vulgarity.

I’m not sure where you’re headed (or if you are even asking with respect to Breimeier’s column), but there certainly is a distinction to be made. In some cases vulgarity is a kind of profanity.

I was born in Brooklyn, New York, I am a city mouse; if there is something blasphemous, profane or vulgar that I haven’t heard, I doubt it could be considered a very effective insult. But even still, as a kid who’d been raised to be polite, the first time I heard a farmer refer to a pig’s teats, it caught me by surprise. It struck me as gratuitous and a bit callous, and I thought it was fortunate there was not a girl nearby to be offended.

Now my reaction strikes me as a bit effete. The right word is the right word.

Your example of pissing is a good example. It’s not a word I heard in the pulpit, but it is a word I read in the Bible. It didn’t strike me as offensive, it struck me as curious. Why distinguish male from female in that way?

And I don’t expect men to speak like schoolgirls. Context is always determinative, but the sort of stuff Christian “artists” are engaging in, and what Breimeier wants to excuse, is just vulgarity that has become a convention.

As I say, Breimeier was not being honest with us. Words like whore and bastard are perfectly good words. Used meaningfully there is nothing wrong with them. When someone wants to refer to a world that is twisted, debased and ripe for judgment, to call it fucked up is pretty strange. I mean, Russ himself cannot publish the word in his column; he has to bowdlerized it to messed up. Whore and bastard (when used as invective) has become for Breimeier a halfway house to vulgarity.

That he doesn’t see the incongruity there is very telling. He doesn’t strike me as a particularly competent judge of the language. And to suggest it is permissible because of the U.S. Constitution is just laughable. He gives us all the impression he is just “greasing the skids”: he’s making it just that much less likely pious souls will object to what is mindlessly crude speech.

This brings us back to the larger question. I do not object to what the Jews call “fences around the Torah”. If there is a dangerous place to be, if there is a dangerous way to speak, I have no objection to setting the standards well out of reach of children. This is what I think of as “proper separatism”. I will always respect the Chassidics and the Amish for their pieties.

What I object to is the fundamentalist, parochial, arrogant, imperious attitude that denies maxi skirts on girls or pants on female campers. This way of thinking discredits the pious impulse, and we get whipsawed between the Joneses and the Breimeiers.

I guarantee that if I had posted a comment such as you did in #21, I would have received more than a gentle reproof.

Your explicit reference to profanity is not just unnecessary. It is sin.

Hey Dissidens,

You better re-evaluate your verbal selections. I fear you may lose readership and even donations. Besides, I think you set back the Uncle Charlie-types about ten years.

You already have the Snake hissing like a cornered cat, and if you're not soon repentant, you'll have the NANCers lined up at your in-box trying to get you into some Lafayette rehab sessions to dig out that root of bitterness and pride.

Oh, the power of words!

It's not readership Dissidens is losing in this thread...it's credibility. Comment #21 uses profanity while criticizing others for failing to recognize the difference between vulgarity, profanity, and blasphemy.

There appear to be two sets of rules here at Remonstrans; one for Dissidens, and another for everybody else. When others use profanity (even in the sense of alluding to a word to discuss it), it's quickly (and correctly) blasted as sin. If Dissidens does it, there's silence for hours. Maybe no one was on the site during that time...

Quite frankly, it is not just Dissidens' credibility that is suffering here--the credibility of his selectively vocal fans is tanking as well.

Well said, Dissidens.

I don't see it as dissidens using profanity as he was quoting what someone else had already said. He just filled in the blank with the word that we all read there in the first place, despite Russ' attempt to soften it.

Does this mean I need to give up the bowdlerized expression "things are all messed up?"

...even in the sense of alluding to a word to discuss it..

Blackmambaprof, please cite "chapter and verse."

The actual written word was not read in the article or in this thread until Dissidens' comment #21. Referring to a cuss word (with a "bowdlerized" substitute) and actually saying/writing it when alluding to it are very different. Responsible and decent people who work in print and broadcast media (this excludes Howard Stern and his ilk) know and observe this line. When discussing the issue of profanity, they do so without actually saying/writing certain words. Breimeier observed that line; Dissidens crossed it.

If my adult child, my friend, or my pastor repeated a statement with profanity that someone else had said, I would not be impressed with the rationale that he was simply quoting what someone else had said. Although we may have to discuss the unpleasant topic of profanity, repeating profanity itself is not permitted for a Christian, even if its use is only for allusion or information.

The bigger problem is that Dissidens' latest comment in this thread still misrepresents Breimeier's position. Dissidens says that "the sort of stuff Christian 'artists' are engaging in, and what Breimeier wants to excuse, is just vulgarity that has become a convention."

Breimeier's article is a objection (albeit with a woefully weak conclusion IMO) to profane language in Christian lyrics. It's not an excuse for it.

Nolo Contendere--Please use the expression "things are all messed up" all you want.

The problem is that Dissidens chose to write out a profane word in this thread. At the most basic level, what he did was unnecessary. All of us knew what was being discussed. More importantly, the word he used has no function in the English language other than to express profanity. To write/speak a word which has no function other than to express profanity is to write/speak profanity. It is not possible within the language to use the word any other way.

Eph 4:29 "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth."
Col 3:8 "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth."
Col 4:6 "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt..."

I would appreciate hearing if (and why) you do not believe these verses are relevant for regulating a Christian's writing or speaking profane words when discussing the unpleasant topic of profanity.

Blackmambaprof, When I asked for "Chapter and Verse," I did it "tongue in cheek."

I was asking for the chapter and verse, so to speak, where Dissidens blasted "others use of profanity (even in the sense of alluding to a word to discuss it)"

I noticed post #7 did some alluding.

Nolo

Blackmambaprof, When I asked for "Chapter and Verse," I did it "tongue in cheek."

I was asking for the chapter and verse, so to speak, where Dissidens blasted "others use of profanity (even in the sense of alluding to a word to discuss it)"

I noticed post #7 did some alluding.

Nolo

I apologize for the double post.

After clicking "send comment" the first time A message was returned that read something like

"You can only submit once every 30 seconds or your time limit of 7200 minutes is expired"

I don't remember exactly what it said for sure. May be someone can tell me what I did so I can avoid it in the future.

Nolo Contendere--Sorry for missing the tone of your statement/request in #27. Your reply in #30 definitely reflects the kind of tone that Christians should demonstrate when misunderstood (Col 4:6).

Thanks for the good example.

bmp