“It is appalling that men should take this filthy talker whose hopelessly dirty language indicated the morally diseased state of his mind, as a guide to expound Eternal Law and that they should hang upon his words, hold him up for imitation and entrust to him their salvation … To give any idea, even of the faintest, of this man‘s filthy and loathsome language would be impossible unless one is willing to descend into the gutter and wade in obscenity. The original sources are extant, and any one who wishes to consult them may do so if he is prepared for the shock of his life.”- Patrick F. O’Hare on Martin Luther
“Certainly, no Protestant woman can read [Luther’s writing] without - I will not say utter shame and womanly horror - but without indignation that any man, above all a spiritual leader and cleric at that, could speak of her sex with such ordinary common familiarity and coarseness and vulgarity and downright obscenity; that could joke at her sex in its most sacred and venerable moral and physical aspects, taking a stable boy’s unclean delight at rude witticisms over poor woman’s physical differentiation from man; that could make her very body the inspiration of jokes - all evincing a cynical and vulgar contempt for woman as such; that could even have the vulgarity to lift the covers of the nuptial bed and disclose its sacred secrets to the gaze of others.”
- Friar Johnston on Martin Luther
Sounds like what people are saying today about Mark Driscoll.
______________________________________________________________________________
I. BAD Biblical Arguments For Why Cussing Is ALWAYS Wrong
1 - The Bible Says Not To Swear
Matthew 5:33-37
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (NIV)
Adam Clarke’s Commentaries
Thou shalt not forswear thyself. They dishonour the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfill, are not less criminal … It was a custom among the Scythians, when they wished to bind themselves in the most solemn manner, to swear by the king’s throne; and if the king was at any time sick, they believed it was occasioned by some one’s having taken the oath falsely … A common swearer is constantly perjuring himself: such a person should never be trusted. When we make a promise contrary to the command of God, taking, as a pledge of our sincerity, either GOD, or something belonging to him, we engage that which is not ours, without the Master’s consent.
Matthew Henry Commentaries
There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation, must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God, though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but such a constant regard to truth as would render oaths unnecessary.
So, if you were look for articles written against cussing and “swear words” from a Biblical perspective, a large number of them would not only be basing their entire argument on Matthew 5, but they even title their columns from 5:34 - “Do not swear at all” or the KJV’s “Swear not at all.” If you don’t believe me, just google the phrase “Swear not at all.” John Plunkett, for example, starts out his Bible discussion on cussing with Matt. 5:34 and then says -
"What really bugs you?" During the Tabletopics session on a memorable Spokesman Club ladies' night some years ago, the Topicsmaster asked this question … What really bugs me, Mr. Topicsmaster, is swearing. More particularly: swearing in public, swearing in mixed company, and swearing in the media. I am not talking about the type of swearing such as an oath in a court of law. That is a different subject altogether. I am talking about cursing, blasphemy, and profanity - in simple terms, bad language.”Well I’m glad Plunkett isn’t talking about oaths and oath-taking, because that is precisely what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:33-37. I used the NIV this once because it helps us see how this verse became unfortunately linked to cussing by saying “Do not swear at all.” The ESV more literally translates verse 34 as “Do not take an oath at all.” There is, of course, a difference between swearing oaths and what our culture sometimes calls “swear words” and bad language. So why do we ignore this difference whenever we feel like applying this passage to "bad words"?
A very cursory reading, even just of verse 33, makes it abundantly clear that what this passage is forbidding is taking oaths where you use God’s name or creation to make them especially binding. It could be something as simple as saying “By the Lord in His Heaven, honey, if the Yankees win this game, I’ll do the dishes!” Some Christians even refuse to swear on the Bible in court because of this passage, and I don’t necessarily think they’re wrong. Just don’t use God’s name to make promises. It's not going to help you keep your promise, and besides, it’s breaking the third commandment.
If you wanted to tie this verse into applying to profanity because it says not to "swear". I’d suggest following Eric Rigney’s advice - “If the man was writing about oaths, let’s let the verse be about oaths. That’s speaking plainly, if you ask me.”
So except for the general idea that we should show a reverence for the Lord’s name and creation, Matthew 5:33-37 has absolutely nothing to do with cussing.
James 5:12
But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
Exactly the same principle - this is talking about oaths.
Hosea 4:1-3
Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel, for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea are taken away.
Yes, I've heard these verses used to explain how cussing is listed as a characteristic of the ungodly that brings down God's punishment on those with "dirty" mouths. They saw those three words "there is swearing" on the list here leading to bloodshed, and since "swear words" are bad, that's what these verses must be talking about. Right?
It may come as a surprise but (a) verse 2 is talking about swearing oaths, and (b) it is not a coincidence that "lying" is the very next thing listed after "swearing". In fact, some translations translate "lying" as "breaking faith" and thus the contrast "swearing and then breaking faith" "making promises and then breaking them" - is meant as a characteristic of sinful & fallen man.
The Hebrew word used here is "ala" (Strong's #422) which means to "swear an oath, to bind under oath, take an oath." Some English translations translate verse 2 to say "cursing" instead of "swearing" but the Hebrew word for "cursing" is "arar" (Strong's #779). The Greek translation of "ala" is "omnyo" (Strong's #3660) which means "to declare an oath, swear an oath, promise with an oath" and is precisely the word that's used in Matthew 5:34.
So again, no, Hosea 4:1-3 cannot be used to say that the Bible forbids cussing.
Matthew 26:74
Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed.
This verse is used as an example in order to show that, when Peter was sinning by denying the Lord, he started to use profanity. The problem with this interpretation is that nowhere in this verse does it actually say that Peter was using profanity. The Greek word for “swear” is the same as in Matt. 5:34 - “omnyo.” The Greek word for “curse” is “katanathematizo” (Strong’s #2653) which along with the Greek word “katara” (Strong’s #2671) means “to curse, to call down a curse.” In other words, Peter was saying something to the effect here of “God strike me down if I’m not telling the truth” - something clearly not good at all for him to say.
So again, this isn't a verse that’s forbidding cussing.
Cursing - which is usually defined as asking God to damn someone or something, while not expressly forbidden in the Bible, can easily be demonstrated to be wrong by Biblical principle 99% of the time (unless, oh I don't know, you're an Old Testament prophet. In Luke 9:51-56, Jesus rebukes two of his disciples for asking him if they should curse a nearby village ("Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"). Of course, James and John were deadly serious right here - we'll talk more about this later.
Then in Matthew 5:21-22, Christ says that "everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Looking at this passage in context, He is comparing this attitude to murder, basically saying "all of you know that murder is wrong, well just having an angry and murderous attitude towards another in your heart is just as much a sin in God's eyes as murder is." This is clearly a heart thing. Therefore, cursing someone by saying something like "Damn you to hell!" or even just "Goddamn you!" can easily be placed in this same category. This is an ungodly and sinful attitude to have.
James 3:8-10
… but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.
There you go. We ought not to be cursing each other (the Greek word for curse and cursing are variations of "katara"). But remember, to curse has a specific meaning in this context here. "To Curse" means "to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon" another.
I Peter 2:1
"So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander."
I'm still not sure right now why this verse is sometimes used against cussing. Good verse, though.
So ...
These verses are the closest the Bible ever comes to mentioning cussing, let alone forbidding it. But this is interesting. The two words we have here so far are -
swearing (Hb. ala, Gk. omnyo) - to make an oath or promise
cursing (Hb. arar, Gk. katara) - to invoke God's damnation
But today, these two words are also used to mean cussing and profanity. In fact, in our culture, we use all sorts of ways of describing cussing.
More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________
A Little Cultural Detour
cussing, profanity, curse words, swear words, obscenity, bad languagealso described as -
uncouth, common, coarse, crass, vulgar, strong, harsh, rough, rude, tough, bawdy, colorful
and -
crude, dirty, filthy, raunchy, foul, nauseating, garbage
all the way to -
perverse, insulting, shameful, impure, disgusting, offensive, carnal, sinful, evil
Do you see a progression here? I'm tempted to conclude that, over the course of church history, we have taken the ideas of "swearing an oath by something" and "cursing another" and expanded the meanings of these ideas by adding more and more prohibitions to them. Now people use the term "cursing" to refer to everything from "calling down hell fire on someone" to using euphemisms for culturally "impolite" references to sexual and bodily functions.
I'm not enough of a linguistic historian to trace how precisely this has happened. But while "swearing" in Scripture is only referring to oaths, for some reason today we also define "swearing" to include making use of a list of supposed culturally unacceptable & specific words.
This one fellow however, does an excellent job at suggesting what's happened -
“Profane” means “characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious”. That is the key issue, imo – that our society has confused and conflated “vulgar” with “profane”. There are lots of words that have no religious meaning or connotation whatsoever – that are not “profane” in any way, shape or form – that, nonetheless, have come to be seen as “profane” (as somehow irreligious and offensive to God) ...
There are some examples that never were part of religion, but only came to be seen that way as a result of the elitist division I mentioned earlier. “Bastard” simply means child born out of wedlock, so “bastardize” meant to make illegitimate or corrupt. “Bitch” means female dog – no worse or better in its original meaning than “ewe” or “doe” (or ram or steed) or any other name for an animal. It was the application of the word to “those who act like a female dog” (originally “bitching and whining”) that pushed it into the category of unacceptable “swear words”. “Shit” simply means “feces” – and, in its extended meaning, anything else that is disgusting and/or worthless. It was the fact that such words were employed almost exclusively by the uneducated, unwashed masses as “gutter terms” that led to their classification as unacceptable words. Rich, educated, elite people found other ways of saying the same thing in an acceptable manner. (That is an incredibly important point, but it is not understood by the vast majority of people when considering “swear words”.)
What is the difference between a one syllable word and a five syllable word if they mean exactly the same thing? Why is “excrement” or “feces” more acceptable than “shit”? Why is one forbidden and one allowed? Why is “frak” any better than the alternative? Why is “heck” any better than “hell”? Are ... substitutes any different than the move by elitist Victorian prudes to discriminate against the unwashed masses in speech?
It is also interesting to note that in modern English, it's mostly just the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic words that are today considered objectionable, while the words with Norman and Latin roots are the ones considered polite.
Did you get that?
"S***" is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("scitte"). "Excrement" is Norman in origin ("excrementum").
"Piss" is Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Urine" is Norman in origin ("urina').
"F***" is Germanic in origin ("fricken" - to strike, to penetrate). "Intercourse" is Norman in origin ("entrecours").
"Ass" is Germanic in origin ("arsch"). "Rear" is Norman in origin ("riere").
"C**t" is Germanic in origin ("kott"). "Vulva" is Norman in origin ("volva").
"C**k" is is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("cocc"). "Penis" is Norman in origin.
"Bitch" is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("biche" - a female dog, fox or wolf).
So, the reason most of the "four letter" words are looked down on in the modern English language today is because were originally frowned on by ruling Norman aristocracy in Britain. Anglo-Saxon - the language of the common people - was considered coarse, uncouth and vulgar, while their own Norman terms were favored instead and considered "polite" and "gentile." The language of the lower-class, common people was what was considered "vulgar," while the language of the upper-class nobles was what was considered "polite."
Conclusion?
When it comes to the use of individual words - Blasphemy, taking the Lord's name in vain, speaking in a "profane" manner by "misusing the names for what is sacred or divine" has ALWAYS been looked down on. But there is also a reason why terms like vulgar and coarse refer to what is common or low class. Most other "cuss words" are subjectively and culturally identified. We'll have more questions about what this precisely means for us later.
______________________________________________________________________________
2 - The Bible Says Not To Use “Filthy” Language
Colossians 3:5-8Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
obscene talk - is also phrased in various English translations as filthy language, abusive speech, obscene speech, filthy communication, shameful speaking, unclean talk, vile language, and foul-mouthed abuse.
First, the Greek word here for obscene is “aischrologia” (Strong’s 148) and it appears once in the New Testament, and means foul, low, obscene or filthy talking. The Greek word “aischrotes” (Strong’s 151) also appears once in Scripture, and means “filthiness.” Both these words have a connotation that implies sin.
Related words (although not synonyms) include the Greek -
“aischron” (Strong’s 149) which means shameful (used 3 times, twice in I Corinthians when speaking on what is “shameful” for women, and once in Eph. 5:12 to refer to sin)
“aischros” (Strong’s 150) which means dishonorable (used once in Titus 1:11 - “filthy lucre”)
“aischune” (Strong’s 152) which means shamefulness or disgrace 5 times, and dishonesty once.
From Col. 3:8 we can conclude, however rarely this is actually mentioned in Scripture, that there is such a thing as “obscene” or “filthy” speech. This is something listed right along with anger, wrath, malice, and slander (all attitude problems by the way). But notice this is speech or language. It’s talk, not specific words.
Is it possible to talk in such a way that you are perverting, denigrating, belittling and shaming something good or pure? Of course it is. This is a good Biblical principle. But are “cuss words” necessarily always obscene, denigrating, and filthy speech? If individual “cuss words” are a sin to utter, then yes. If “cuss words” are merely defined by cultural conventions of what consists of polite society at the time, then no.
No one with a rudimentary knowledge of how words are given meaning by the INTENT of their usage would conclude that cussing is always necessarily “filthy” or “obscene” speech.
Eric Rigney said - “It is ludicrous to say that modern society can arbitrarily decide which specific words (regardless of their intended meaning and context) fit into the category Paul is addressing here.”
And do you know why? Because what are considered to be “cuss words” is both subjective and cultural. (Subjective and cultural? That’s redundant.) Look at this passage again, all the things listed here are attitude problems. These are heart problems. Again, this is an list of attitudes, not a list of specific words.
Filthy and denigrating talk is sinful - and it’s also something you can do without using any cuss words at all.
But can Colossians 3:5-8 be used to say that "cuss words" are always wrong? No.
Ephesians 5:3-5
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Phil Johnson says
The Greek expressions for ‘filthiness . . . foolish talking . . . coarse jesting’ are speaking of exactly the same kind of language your mother used to wash your mouth out with soap for. Check any lexicon. It's a pretty sweeping prohibition against every kind of ‘bad’ words.”
“When we have an admittedly subjective commandment like this, that's not a warrant to push the envelope and see how close to impropriety we can come, especially for the sheer shock value of being heard. Rather, it's a good time to exercise extreme caution and stay as far away as possible from whatever is obviously in bad taste—perhaps even what is merely questionable.
Filthiness here is the same Greek word we already mentioned “aischrotes” ( Strong’s #151). This is the second and last time it’s found in the New Testament (the first being Col. 3:8). The meaning here is the same no matter how you translate it. Filthy speech, obscene communication, etc. This (a) is more about your attitude than the actual words you are using, and (b) having a sinful or hateful attitude in your speech, it is very easy to makes use of the cultural cuss words of the day.
Johnson’s problem with telling us to look at the lexicon is that the lexicon defines the word “aischrotes” as filthy or obscene. To Johnson, there are a list of specific words that are filthy and obscene to utter. But I’m going to suggest that that is too easy.
It’s much too easy to just say that Ephesians 5:4 is talking about whatever list of words your current culture happens to consider vulgar or uncouth at that particular moment. If that’s what Paul meant why didn’t he just say so? And if that’s what Paul meant, why did he use words and expressions that, if translated literally, couldn’t be read inside a church today (more on this in Part 5).
It’s much more difficult to have to use discernment to decide what is filthiness or foolish talk in different situations. It’s bad manners to even say words like “crap”, “hell”, or “darn” in some social settings. It’s much more difficult to focus on your heart and your attitude in how you are speaking, rather than just using a checklist of words.
And while we’re at it, let’s get into the spirit of the thing here -
The Greek word for “crude joking” here is “eutrapelia” (Strong’s #2160). This is again another example of a word only used once in the New Testament. The Greek/English Lexicon defines “eutrapelia” as “pleasantry, humour, facetiousness in a bad sense.” Nice and clear isn’t it? (I'm joking.) I think it’s at least obvious that this verse isn’t forbidding making a joke. “Eutrapelia” is the sort of joking that is actually wrong in a moral sense.
What do you think the English word “crude” means anyway? Sexual, right? Being “crude” according to a large number of Christians means talking about sexual and bodily functions.
Here’s Webster -
crude - “lacking in intellectual subtlety, perceptivity, etc.; rudimentary; undeveloped … lacking finish, polish, or completeness … lacking culture, refinement, tact … undisguised; blunt”
So how on earth could being crude be something morally wrong? Plenty of the Old Testament prophets were occasionally crude (even with jokes, remember Elijah?). Even the Apostle Paul would be considered crude at times. So how does this word “eutrapelia” imply morally wrong humor? Is it always morally wrong to ever joke about sex? Think about that for a moment. I would answer that it can be. You can use "crude joking" or to denigrate and make light of evil when it comes to sex. That is precisely what “eutrapelia” means. But I wouldn't try and stretch this to mean that joking about sex can NEVER be innocent or harmless.
In some social settings being crude is “lacking culture” or “refinement” - in other words, just plain good manners. Is it bad, even in a moral sense, to choose to use bad manners in a situation that requires it? Yes. Is it absolutely wrong to break out into a stream of cussing in certain situations around certain people? Of course it is.
Crude joking/bad joking is wrong in a cultural sense. Because it’s the culture that decides what is considered crude or unrefined in the first place.
But, I fundamentally disagree with Phil Johnson’s conclusion on these verses. Read it again. Ephesians 5:3-5 is talking about sin. When he says “it must not even be named among you” Paul is not saying that we are not supposed to ever talk about sin. “as is proper among saints” - he’s talking about how we talk about sin. And you know what? This is not something that only Christians understand. This is an inherently moral issue, and you still know what’s right and wrong whether you’re a Christian or not (Romans 2:14-15).
I just wrote out an example, but then deleted it because the example I had written actually seemed offensive to me. Let's just say that it's possible to talk about sin in such a way that you are encouraging it, helping yourself and others give into temptation, and joke about it (in order to make evil look attractive). You can do this with cuss words. And you can do this without cuss words. Filthy talk is filthy talk regardless of what words you're using. Joking that encourages yourself or others to sin is also wrong regardless of what words you use. Being "filthy" or "crude" intentionally in a social setting where you know it will cause harm is also wrong whether you use cuss words or not.
Ephesians 4:29-32
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the days of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
The KJV translates 4:29 as "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth ..."
The Greek word for corrupt or corrupting here is "sapros" (Strong's #4550) (make putrid) 1 - of such poor quality as to be of little or no value, bad, not good, 2 - bad or unwholesome to the extent of being harmful, bad, evil, unwholesome, in a moral sense an evil word, evil speech
This is an even more direct Biblical principle that isn't just about a bad attitude in cultural settings. This is specifically referring to talk that is unwholesome and corrupting because it actually harms or corrupts someone else. Something or someone is being harmed or corrupted by your talk.
“By corrupting words are meant not primarily obscenities, but any words that promote division, discouragement, etc. It is possible to build someone up with a four letter word. And we all know it’s possible to corrupt someone or slander someone with highly refined rhetoric.”
(The above quote is from another excellent discussion on this topic held by a writer under the writing name Isaiah543.)
Only a slavish legalistic interpretation of this passage could be used to try and say that particular "words", in and of themselves, always harm and corrupt others who hear them. Again, I would argue that a discerning interpretation of this passage, within it's context, results in the conclusion that our talk is supposed to build each other up.
It is possible for "corrupting talk" to include no "cuss words" whatsoever. (Being a sinner, along with the fact that everyone else I know are also sinners, I've seen this happen frequently.)
It is also possible for edifying/building up talk to include "cuss words." Having spent a significant amount of time in the military, I can say I've seen this happen. If you don't believe me, watch a good war movie - in fact, Tears of the Sun would be an excellent example where the American soldiers frequently use speech to build each other up and to encourage each other with the use of multiple "cuss words").
While I do focus on intent frequently in this discussion (because intent of the speaker obviously determines a word's specific meaning), I do think you can even use harmful and corrupting speech carelessly without necessary intending to harm anyone. This is all the more reason to guard your speech. So this passage of Scripture is dealing with the heart and attitude once again - bitterness, wrath, anger, malice - while also not ruling out that you can harm someone by your speech, perhaps even unintentionally.
What this passage is not doing, however, is forbidding "cuss words."
Ephesians 5:11-12
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.
Again, another passage that is expressly talking about sin, not culturally impolite words.
Proverbs 4:24
Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.
(a) this is a proverb, (b) it's talking about morally suspect crooked and devious talk, and (c) not about "cuss words"
James 1:21
Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
Amen.
______________________________________________________________________________
3 - Cussing Harms Your Witness & Reputation As A Christian
Romans 12:2Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
To most Christians, particularly if you've been raised in a sheltered all-Christian environment, using "cuss words" means conforming to the world - and thus, sinning.
The argument, at it's most basic level, goes like this -
(1) Christians don't/shouldn't cuss (because cussing is a sin).
(2) If you cuss, you aren't "acting like a Christian" (because you're sinning).
(3) Therefore, nonChristians won't believe anything you say about the gospel.
See the price of conforming to the world, they say. If you start acting like the world, then the world won't think you're a Christian and will scoff at your trying to present the gospel.
I completely reject this argument.
First, because I don't believe cussing is a sin.
Second, if you have very many nonChristian friends, you'll find that it doesn't even cross their minds to think that a cuss word is morally wrong (unless your being a prude starts making them feel uncomfortable). Sure, they might apologize for it afterwards, because that's just plain good manners (and they've probably had a Christian mother or grandmother who told them that those words were bad). But remember that stuff in the Bible about how God has implanted the moral law in the hearts of every man (also called the conscience). Because cussing is not in the moral law, unless someone has be taught to think differently, it never occurs to a nonChristian that a single word of vocabulary, in and of itself, is wrong to utter.
Third, because I believe being legalistic hurts the gospel. If you insist that something that isn't wrong really is wrong. NonChristians will know it. And that will be just one more reason for them to reject the gospel.
Fourth, because I believe being easily offended hurts the gospel. If something as trivial as a "shit" or a "crap" leaves your feathers in a huff, you are conforming to the world's wrong stereotype of the Christian. Simply using good manners in the appropriate social setting is one thing, nonChristians understand this. But being made to feel uncomfortable for not conforming to legalistic Victorian moral rules of social behavior simply because you are around someone makes that someone unlikable. And someone like that is not going to be your friend. And it's your friend who you are most likely to listen to if he starts sharing the gospel.
Fifth, because I believe that being "real" includes dumping institutional and traditional man-made-up rules for being a Christian. If I were a nonChristian, I would be far more interested in someone who was willing to call sin sin (without calling a violating list of their sub-culture's standards of behavior sin). I have found, more than once, that is was easier to share the gospel with other friends when I wasn't making Christianity seem like a list of don'ts you can't do.
I Corinthians 10:31-33 - okay, just 32
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.
Let me be very clear - if you are presenting the gospel in a social setting where using "cuss words" would give offense - then you are NOT TO USE CUSS WORDS. If, on the other hand, you are in a social setting where insisting that cuss words are a sin gives offense, then don't insist that they're a sin!
2 Timothy 2:16
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
Having discussed all these Scripture passages here in Part 4, it is clear that there is a sort of talk that could be called "irreverent" or even "ungodly" babble. With or without cuss words, this is wrong and it (a) encourages/corrupts others into ungodliness, and (b) does hurt you witness as a Christian. It is this sort of speech that hurts your ability to share the gospel. Not cuss words, in and of themselves.
I Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
First of all, we've already gone over the frequent misinterpretation of this verse, see - On the Appearance of Evil
Secondly, let's just say that, even though the Bible does not generally instruct us to actually make an effort to avoid all "appearance of evil," there are times when cuss words do appear evil and times when they don't.
______________________________________________________________________________
4 - Cussing Is Not ________ (Insert “Noble, Pure, Good, Edifying, Encouraging, etc. in the blank space provided)
Remember what Eric Rigney said? -
"... does there need to be a noble reason for everything we do? Does everything have to have some earth-shatteringly significant utilitarian nature? This is really fodder for another article, but I think the answer is no. I think it’s the clamoring for a pragmatic reason for everything that’s taken the joy out of life for so many people and makes so many others hateful and hostile toward anything that does not conform to their standards of usefulness."
Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
Galatians 5:18-23
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control: against such things there is no law.
These two beautiful passages of Scripture should inform and motivate your use of and your intent whenever you are speaking. There is a wrong Christian theological point of view out there that says that everything you do has to be "to the glory of God" in the sense that it is expressly for some noble purpose of spiritual worth. You can be legalistic enough to rule out games, entertainment, "wordly pleasures", normal socializing with friends, or simply taking pleasure in any part of God's creation simply because it doesn't supposedly have an important eternally significant purpose. This viewpoint is neither just nor commendable.
Whether you use cuss words or not, or whether you believe that cuss words are always wrong or not, you can still focus on trying to show the "fruits of the Spirit" by how you lvie and on trying to dwell on what is righteous, just, pure and lovely.
All of these passages of Scripture are talking about your heart and your attitude - not mere outward a-moral actions and words.
0 comments:
Post a Comment