Remonstrance

Please note: dammit technically is not a cussword because:

1. It is not a four-letter-word;
2. it is not a real word (it is a compound of two words);
3. the embedded cussword is spelled with two “m’s”, not “mn”.

Is this not silly? Such are the mental gymnastics the Cuss Police must hurdle in the quest for cuss-free perfection. Although Jeremiah wrote an excellent article about this issue at the NeoZine, I’ve come to understand the real struggle is between the Cussword Canon and the Urban Dictionary.

“Allow Me to Introduce Myself”

Allow me to pierce my own ego publicly before proceeding with this dirty-word business by acknowledging my own legalism and self-righteousness. I have dragged Christians away from their faith; I have committed shameful and even criminal acts; I have actively campaigned against the One who saved me, stumbled Christians, abused my good parents, and the list goes on.

With such a history, I know what it’s like to play the self-righteous Christian, condemning others with vitriolic rage for sins far-less damaging. I cannot assign all that dirt to “my misguided youth”, because it was God’s grace that rescued me from folly, not the so-called wisdom of age.

With that in mind, please understand there is no ground for me to claim superiority over the Cuss Police, my fellow-Saints. My own hypocrisy enables me to see others struggling with it. I was given a piece of freedom, so I freely offer to pass along the liberty of God to any Saints burdened with Cuss Police responsibilities.

This week at the Xenos Summer Institute, certain young provocateurs wore shirts declaring, “CUSSING IS NOT A SIN!” Clearly they were baiting the Cuss Police, but not to antagonize or insult—if cusswords covered their shirts, they would be antagonizing, yes.

Their shirts stated a doctrinal position, just as other shirts at XSI carried slogans and causes ranging from poverty relief to women’s rights. The discussions triggered by their pro-cussing-cause seemed friendly enough. Their willingness to listen was evident.

Kay Arthur took the bait, a keynote speaker. My son Kyle was wearing that shirt, and Kay grabbed his arm and quoted scripture, “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.” This 76-year-old saint was kind and relational, and allowed Kyle to explain he was not advocating taking the Lord’s name in vain. (There is a difference between swearing and cussing.) Her intentions were good and her efforts to understand were honorable, even if she was baffled.

“I felt he needed to know what he was actually doing,” Kay told me later. I thanked her for this highly-justified cause (he does need to know what he’s doing).

Later, in her teaching, Kay said, “I don’t give a damn!” (Someone claimed she said “bitch”, which I don’t know.) Interestingly, her slip-up escaped Cuss Police censure because it was an appropriate and judicious use of cussing. It seemed like natural speech.

The Cussing Conundrum

Here is the cussing conundrum: if Kay Arthur cussed, if the Cuss Police didn’t notice, and if we all employ an “appropriate and judicious use of cussing” at times (do we not?), why is it still a big bugaboo? The shirts worn by those provocateurs seemed strident at XSI only because Christian ethics are woefully culture-bound to the 1950s and out of touch with the changing world, and I can prove it.

BUT FIRST, please be advised: language can be devastating and cruel when it takes the forms described in Ephesians 4:32 and 5:2, where it says our speech should not be degrading. (See Jeremiah’s article for details.) Loving Christians must be differentiated from the unloving world in their speech.  Christians should be the last people on earth to degrade God or Jesus by treating their names like trash. And any language—cusswords, gossip or railing judgments—which degrades the loving Christian witness is foul stuff.

Hopefully these caveats make it clear we should never advocate the indiscriminate use of violent, degrading, or sexually-abusive language. Christians cannot act like drunken sailors looking for a fight (apologies to any navy people, like you, dad, if you’re reading this—it’s just an expression).

What escapes the notice of culture-bound Christians are the changes in English since the 60s. I am old enough to remember when cusswords were used for pugnacious reasons by violent people. Today cusswords are also used as friendly slang words, and not abusive words. (A polite example might be, “Hey, Mo Fo!” But please don’t use that indiscriminately…it can result in a black eye, depending on the recipient.)

Canonized Cusswords?

[Note: for those unfamiliar with church-words, 'canon' means 'church rule', or 'church standard'. 'Canon Law" refers to the body of decrees and papal bulls made by Institutionalized Christianity through the ages. 'Canonized' means some church council made some rule about something, somewhere, at some time, and it's supposed to carry a pompous, implicit threat. ]

All cusswords are vernacular, meaning they are slang, and not part of formal English. Slang words in all forms are inappropriate in educated, cultured discourse or public speaking venues, (nobody says, “Hey, y’all!” in a public speech)  and this truly confuses Christians who normally speak in cultured discourse, and therefore believe any cussing is inappropriate.

But Christians overlook the online Urban Dictionary, used by the profane (non-religious) world. It carved a popular niche untouched by the Oxford English Dictionary, the usual friend of Christian parlance.  The Urban Dictionary defines vernacular, and because slang changes so often, this Internet dictionary keeps pace.  So the Urban Dictionary is the place to understand the cussing world, not the Oxford dictionary, which can only standardize English, and avoids slang.

Since cusswords are vernacular, by definition, the vernacular can turn cusswords into non-cusswords.

It is that simple.

There is simply no biblical list of cusswords, period. This is not a doctrinal debate, people. The frustration for the Cuss Police is the complete absence of any authoritative list of violent, abusive, foul, or obscene words. As soon as such a list is produced it will become quickly outdated as slang changes. Not all the words change their meanings quickly, but the list itself is a moving target. This is the absurdity of canonized cusswords.

Rather than lists of “dirty” words, God gives us principles of loving intercourse (cultured minds understand the clear meaning here–use the Oxford dictionary). Since loving intercourse is “the goal of our instruction,” the Bible says (again, using the Oxford dictionary).

What those friendly provocateurs should have written on their shirts was this:

“CUSSING IS NOT A SIN,
USE LOVING INTERCOURSE INSTEAD!”

Now that slogan would provoke far more interesting conversations, because the Cuss Police would get confused about which dictionary or cussword-canon defines intercourse! (Do you know?)

Weightier Portions

Christians stuck with a cussword canon are probably not doing a good job of interacting with the changing world, because the culture has no such canon. It is understandable when really old Christians like Kay Arthur, my mother, and others from the WWII generation fall behind in the changing world. They may never appreciate the fine use of slang (although Kay is making remarkable strides).

But for those of us highly-engaged with the contemporary world, cuss-phobia is clearly addressed by the Bible:

When I am with the Gentiles who do not follow the Jewish law, I too live apart from that law so I can bring them to Christ. But I do not ignore the law of God; I obey the law of Christ. 1 Corinthians 9:21 (NLT)

It means drop the religious lingo around non-Christians. It is bad enough when Christians carry a cussword canon from the 1950s, but quite another thing to impose the outdated canon on non-Christians. Not only does it guarantee alienation, it is a clear violation of scripture.

Some Christians think cuss-phobia is a testimony for Jesus, which is ironic, if not tragic.  In reality, non-Christians chuckle about cuss-phobic Christians.  Christians get teased when they “slip” and cuss not because their witness was blown, but because they deserve to get ribbed for excessive pickiness and cuss-phobias.

When reaching out to non-Christians, we do not act lawlessly, but “I obey the law of Christ,” Paul says. It means we stand firmly on God’s definition of love, and maintain a loving, relational disposition as our witness. Imposing outdated vernacular standards on non-Christians is neither loving or relational.

Christianity Today recently published an article about the “Lord’s name in vain” issue, where the writer makes the profound point this injunction concerns not merely using His name in expletives, but the need to honor His name:

As with all commandments, we keep them not just by avoiding certain behaviors but also by doing good works. So we are reminded to pray, praise, and verbally give thanks to God for his goodness and to call out to him in times of trouble. We must work to ensure proper teaching and employ God’s name in defense of truth and goodness. Hemmingway, Vainly Naming the Name

Being Different

The power of the Christian voice is evidenced by our divergence from the surrounding culture. This is repeated often in the Bible, but I love the original version of this concept:

Leviticus 11:44 (NASB) ‘For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth.

“Consecrate” and “holy” simply mean “different.” This is so cool: stay away from “the swarming things that swarm…” He sure knows how to picture it!

There is a godly and ungodly way to “be different” from “the swarming things.” The Godly difference should be attractive, “the aroma of Christ,” where, “They will know you are my disciples by your love.” Non-Christians are drawn away from “the swarming things,” so degrading and oppressive. We cannot add to their burdens Christian cultural stigmas wrapped in the pretense of cleanliness.

The ungodly Christian difference is poisoned with hypocrisy, and non-Christians are both confused and repelled by it. Christians must repudiate this reputation for hypocrisy and petty morality, so “you shall not make yourselves unclean.”

Paul offers tremendous insight to this issue:

Likewise urge the younger men to control themselves.  Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us.”

Radical stuff!

This entry was posted on Monday, July 26th, 2010 at 2:54 am and is filed under revolution. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.