What's the deal with tongues? In this article, Jesse Medina recounts his experience in an Assemblies of God church with a high value on speaking in tongues. But what about the weirdness? Can we throw tongues out altogether? Read and Interact
Is It Okay for Christians to Cuss?
Posted By Anonymous on/at 7:30 AM
Written by Jesse Medina
The following list was compiled as the result of very in-depth scientific data gathering among today’s Christians. Consider it on a level just beneath the canon of the Bible.
Top 10 Most Offensive Things to Christians
10. The following books/movies: Harry Potter, DaVinci Code, The Golden Compass
9. A dislike for Joel Osteen
8. Cussing
7. Smoking and/or Drinking
6. Being a Democrat
5. Watching R-Rated Movies (scholars are divided on whether The Passion is included)
4. Preferring secular music over Christian “music”
3. The word “masturbation”
2. A dislike for Kirk Cameron
1. Saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”
Today, I want to focus on number 8 – cussing. Though dropping an f-bomb is not nearly as bad as saying “Happy Holidays” for most Christians, it is still severely frowned upon. In fact, in most Christian circles, using a word that can be defined as cussing is enough for your salvation to be called into question…even if the rest of your life is completely in line with Christ.
Part of what is interesting about this, though, is that there isn’t a consensus on which words are considered cussing. For some, words such as gosh, darn, freak, and shoot are just as bad as the words they replace. I know this firsthand as I was once berated for saying “freaking” at a youth group event. According to the volunteer/mother of one of the students, it was "just as bad as saying the real thing." In my not-so-wise response, I offered to say the real thing. She wasn’t happy.
There is another one that is particularly abrasive for Christians, though I think most people wouldn’t say it is an actual cuss word…just a word that they don’t like. I’ve used it several times in sermons and my wife always tells me how bad it is: pissed. I don’t know why, but it is like nails on a chalkboard for Christians.
But what does the Bible say about cussing? Let’s examine a few things:
Verses
There are a few verses that it seems everyone brings up in relation to this conversation:
James 3:9-10Seems pretty clear, right? Not necessarily. James here could be talking about cussing, but he could also be talking about cursing someone – and these are two different things. The context seems to indicate this about the process of building someone up or tearing them down. Either that or gossip. Or wisdom. But it doesn’t seem to be talking about “bad words.”
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
Colossians 4:6The shortcoming of this verse as reason to not cuss should be obvious: grace is not about specific words but the attitude/tone of conversation. My words can be completely void of cuss words and still not be infused with grace – and if you’ve ever been on the receiving side of someone who, without cussing, tears you down, you know how terrible it feels. On the flipside, I could cuss like a sailor and show more grace than many Christians do.
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
Matter of the Heart
But perhaps the more important question that we should be asking when someone says certain words is what it reveals about the heart. Though many of us adhere to the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out” Jesus didn’t. In fact, in one particular instance, he says that it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that make him unclean, but what comes out of it since that is a reflection of the heart.
Still seems to condemn cussing, right?
Not necessarily. When Jesus taught on this, he said nothing about bad words. Instead he listed some of the evil things that come from the heart: evil thoughts (no clarification there), murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander.
So here is a question worthy of considering: can a positive message be communicated even when so called “bad” words are used?
Cultural Construction
Would cuss words be considered cuss words if nobody told us they were bad? Or what if we grew up and cuss words were normative for our vocabulary – would they be sinful? We would definitely say this for some things: murder, adultery, etc., but we aren’t so quick to say the same when it comes to words. Perhaps the reason is because we don’t even have consensus on which words are bad among our different Western cultures.
But can we really say that sin is relative to one’s culture? That’s a slippery slope.
Think about it.
The Bible's Writers Sometimes Used Cuss Words
Say what?!?! God cusses? For shizzle my nizzles. For example, when Paul says that oft-quoted, feel-good thing about how he considers all things rubbish compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8), the word he uses for "rubbish" is a sort of street-language way of saying feces. It isn't quite the same as saying "crap" either, though. Paul is actually using a vulgar word here to make a point. Essentially, he is saying that he considers all things "shit" compared to knowing Christ.
That's hits us in a different way, a more real way, than saying rubbish or crap or dung or poop, doesn't it? The darkness of the term makes the light of Christ shine all the more.
Want more examples of God's filthy mouth? Check out this (much more serious, insightful, boring-but-still-great) article.
Bearing with the Weaker Brother
With all of that in mind, then, I have to conclude that cussing is not necessarily sinful. Dropping an f-bomb isn't in the same category as lust or idolatry or murder. It may be a sin, but it is only that to the extent it reflects something sinful in the heart.
That said, before you go off and drop the f-bomb in Sunday School there is something you should be aware of. Some may be weaker than you. Some may not understand that it is not a sin. The trouble is, you will not know who those people are right away. Since that is the case, be careful how you exercise your freedom.
What do you think? Can "cuss words" be used to build up or are they all bad? How might this affect the way you choose (or choose not) to use cuss words?
Posted in
Logging you in...
ThatGuyKC · 786 weeks ago
Similar to your James 3 reference is back in Exodus 20 (the 10 commandments) where the Israelites are told not to "take the Lord's name in vain." I'd always been taught this meant to never say "goddamnit" or the like (although I do think this is a good idea), but recently I heard a different perspective which portrays the passage as meaning we shouldn't take on the Lord's name (i.e., claim to represent or follow Him) in vain.
Something to think about.
Props for referencing the "Paul's Profanity" article.
Jesse Medina 32p · 786 weeks ago
ThatGuyKC · 786 weeks ago
I was drawing a similar analogy in Exodus 20 to "take the Lord's name in vain" as meaning either "goddamnit" or claiming to "take [on] the Lord's name" as part of who you are and failing to represent Him appropriately.
I'm not explaining it very well so here's a link (http://www.isaiah58.com/tracts/takingthename.html... or you can Google "taking the Lord's name in vain" to find some good articles at the top of the search results.
Jesse Medina 32p · 786 weeks ago
I assume that you bring this up as a way to warn us about claiming to represent God and tarnish his name implying that we could actually be taking his name in vain. And perhaps you're right (I'm not sure I agree at the moment, but would require more time to look into it), but then wouldn't every self-proclaimed "Christian" be taking the Lord's name in vain when they sin?
ThatGuyKC · 786 weeks ago
I don't know if I agree with the alternate concept of "taking the Lord's name in vain" either, but it's something to think about - especially regarding your question.
Maybe the Crusaders or the Michigan nutjobs (or even everyday average Joe Christian) would've paused to consider if they really represented God if this passage was interpreted differently.
Corrigan · 786 weeks ago
Jesse Medina 32p · 786 weeks ago
In other words, we should bear with others who don't agree with us as though by bearing with them, we are building them up.
Corrigan · 786 weeks ago
Mom · 786 weeks ago
Jesse Medina 32p · 786 weeks ago
I think cussing is certainly a sign of unintelligence for some, but to say that it is outright is, I think, a broad brush to paint with.
Do you disagree with what I said about Paul's use of a vulgar term?
Mom · 786 weeks ago
Jesse Medina 32p · 786 weeks ago
Lane · 786 weeks ago
For a further exploration of swearing and how to do it properly, see the following article.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/a-profanity-prim...
Jesse Medina 32p · 785 weeks ago
That changed for me when I made it a point to get past the cussing. In all honesty, there are some who simply cannot express themselves well without cussing. Call it good, bad, immature, or whatever, it is what it is. We can either snub our noses at them or give them the benefit of the doubt despite their language.
In all seriousness, I'd challenge you to make a concerted effort, next time you're in a conversation with someone who can't seem to keep from dropping f-bombs, to overlook their language and focus on what they're really trying to communicate.
Regarding your language with your pastor and friends...I applaud you for at least having the integrity to make it the same both ways. That said, I find it unfortunate that you would be unwilling to cuss around your pastor should the situation warrant.
brianmont51 4p · 786 weeks ago
http://brianmont51.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/poiso...
Jesse Medina 32p · 785 weeks ago
Really great article. Well thought out. Balanced.
But, at the end of it, I didn't actually feel that your point about why its not beneficial/wise to use such language was well made. If anything I felt that what you wrote is in complete agreement with what I've written here (and what it seemed like Driscoll was saying). Perhaps the strongest point you made was that Driscoll regrets this as the way many people know him.
Even your ending point about above reproach is immediately called into question by Paul's own strong language. If to be above reproach and setting a godly example for others that they may be completely unable to accuse us of any wrongdoing is at odds with vulgar language in any/ever circumstance, Paul obviously didn't get that message. As you noted in your article and as I've noted here, he used vulgar language to make a point.
Am I missing something?
brianmont51 4p · 785 weeks ago
As for me, I am not against certain words as much as I am against the usage of certain words. I think it's flirting with legalism to say that certain words are always sinful. For example, at one time the word ass referred to a donkey. I think it would be extremely legalistic to say that referring to a donkey as an ass is a sin. But telling someone to kiss your ***.... well, I find a hard time justifying that statement. I think the key to whether or not something is a cuss word is context. In one sentence, a word may be vulgar and derogatory. In another sentence, it may be referring to an animal.
I think the big issue we would disagree on is whether Paul in fact used profane language. I don't think the question is whether or not Paul used "strong" language. That is a definite yes! However, I read the article you linked about Paul's Profanity and found it to be a little off. The problem I have is, the scriptures being discussed can be interpreted a different way (I'm not referring to isogesis, but rather interpreting it a different way while still being exegetical).
I'll address the main scripture that is most often quoted in defense of cussing.
Philippians 3:8
"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them RUBBISH, that I may gain Christ"
- It's true, one way the greek word "skybalon" is translated is "dung." However, the overlying meaning of the word is "any refuse," meaning - "Items or material discarded or rejected as useless or worthless; trash or rubbish." The possible translations for "skybalon" are, "any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs, offal; of things worthless and detestable." As you can see, "dung" is not the only possible translation for the word. More so, the point is that all things have became worthless to Paul, when compared to the greatness of knowing Christ. Even more so, Paul using the word to mean feces would most likely be for the purpose of simply explaining how those are things that, like bodily waste, have left his body and are of no importance. I think it's a hard argument to make that he was looking to shock the Philippians with a cuss word.
The other big argument I saw from the article on "Paul's Profanity" was concerning Romans 6:1-2-
"(1) What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? (2) BY NO MEANS! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"
The argument made is that "by no means" is the equivalent of "hell no." However, I am convinced this is an even further example of reading our culture into the text. The greek word for that phrase is "ginomai." When the text says "by no means," that is a literal translation. There is no implication of it being a profane term, whatsover. It's a negative term, yes... but not a profane term. The argument made is that "ginomai" would mean essentially the same thing as "hell no" does today. However, this is a faulty argument. Why? "By no means" means essentially the same thing as "hell no" does today. The only difference is that one carries a profane tone, but this profane tone is not present or implied in Romans 6:1-2.
I hope that clears up more of my view on the topic. Again, I'm very appreciative of your willingness to Biblically approach controversial topics.
Jesse Medina 32p · 785 weeks ago
To use your own example, I could say 'kiss my ass' and you would take that as an insult. But a literal translation would read 'kiss my donkey'. The same goes for other cuss words as well - they have literal meanings quite different from the way we use them.
In the article on Paul's Profanity, the author made reference to skybalon being used as graffiti and profanity in other texts. What do you think of that?
brianmont51 4p · 785 weeks ago
My claim in the exegesis of Philippians 3:8 and Romans 6:1-2 is that contextually and literally, it's a hard sale to say that Paul is speaking profanely. There's good reason to believe that he was speaking very strongly and very negatively about those things. However, contextually I don't see reason to believe that Paul was speaking profanely. There's the possibility he was talking about feces in Philippians 3:8, but that doesn't mean he was speaking about it profanely. As for "ginomai" or "me genoito," it does carry a very strong and negative tone. However, it is contextually very far from the equivalent of "hell no."
I agree that it's very likely that skybalon was used in certain graffiti and other texts as a profane word. However, I don't think that's the context Paul was using it in. The overall tone of the passage doesn't imply or give reason for Paul to use profanity. Of all people, I would see reason for Paul to use such strong and offensive language (if at all) while speaking with pharisees and legalists... but the Philippian church- those who have professed faith and brought joy to Paul in the midst of his suffering? Contextually, that is a hard sale for me. In addition, Paul's method was never to shock and awe with eloquence and/or controversial language. He spoke the truth boldly, and let the Spirit do the rest. After all, there wasn't a need to use such language to keep people interested. The simple message of proclaiming all things as worthless when compared to the greatness of some carpenter who claimed to be God, died for sins, and resurrected from the dead, was a culture-shocking statement in and of itself.
But anyway, good discussion man. You're right, we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree (which I hate sometimes. lol). But let me just make clear that I don't think a person is a heretic or chief of sinners for disagreeing on this topic. It is a controversial topic, and there should be grace shown to both sides (even though we disagree and discuss why we disagree). There's also that whole thing with it not being an essential to the Christian faith. So all in all, it prolly wouldn't be my preference to hang out with believers who use such language (notice I say believers, not lost people. I don't expect non-believers to act like believers). However, I'm not ready to start a war or attempt to exile them for the church over it either.