« Churches Making Millions Selling "Air" | Main | Modern Ministry Titles »

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

The Emergent Four Letter Vocabulary

SwearingOne of the big criticisms of those involved in the 'emergent' church movement is that they like to swear.  You know, a sh** her and a h*ll there.  Some, I think, do it for dramatic effect.  Others, I'm sure do it just for it's shock value.  (I remember back in college (a very conservative, baptist college, btw) at a chapel when a guest pastor said the word b**ch and everyone was so shocked that he used the word that noone remembered what he spoke about; just that he said a naughty word.)  I also remember when we had Jerry Falwell come in and he told his 'three wise men and a virgin' joke.  Quite provacative in the 1980s.  And I still remember it.

So, now... on to the subject at hand.  Read this essay by RealLivePreacher over at TheOoze.  In this 'dramatized version' of the rich woman; Judas uses some language that you normally wouldn't hear in a Christian essay.  Our friends at Slice have already denounced this as an example of the Emerging Church having an 'entirely different set of morality standards than mainstream Christianity'.  I think that's a bit strong.

Here's the deal.  I think it's a fine line.  How do you think Judas reacted when the woman poured all that expensive perfume over Jesus' head?

Do you think he said, "oh my goodness, why hast thou donest this, thou crazed woman?"

Or do you think he was ticked and said something closer to what RealLivePreacher thinks he may have said?

I'm guessing it was probably closer to the latter.

Another example.  David saw Bathsheeba naked.  Buck naked.  And he WANTED her.  Pure lust; and all the impure thoughts were there.  (How do we talk when we lust?  What words do we use?  How do our lustful thoughts come through in our language?)

Then he hatched a plan to murder her husband.  MURDER.  Ruthless, merciless.  Unbelieveable.  (Have you ever heard an undercover murder plot recorded on TV?  What's the language like?  If you're plotting a murder, your language is usually not pleasant).

Would it be too much of a stretch of the imagination that David, (remember, a man after God's own heart) would also throw out a couple of four letter words during his lustful, murderous period?  I bet he did.  He lusted, and murdered.  Is it that much of a stretch to think that he cursed as well?

That said, should we write essays that portray Bible characters as swearing?  Well, no... I'm not really comfortable with that either.  Sometimes when you're striving for authenticity you can go overboard; like the guest pastor and Jerry Falwell circa 1984.

But to say that RealLivePreacher's comments mean that he subscribes to a different moral standard that the Bible or Christianity is also unfounded.

As usual... I cry out for balance.

I really don't want to hear Judas swear.  Nor do I want him to speak King-James-English.  I do want to hear the Word in language that I understand.  And saying that Judas was ticked rather than he was 'p***ed' or 'torn in spirit' still works fine for me.

FOR DISCUSSION:  What words are acceptable in speech and written communication?  When does 'authenticity' go too far?  Do you think it's fair to attack RLP's morality?  And finally... what do you say when you hit yourself in the finger with a hammer?  Be honest.

Add Your Comments and Ideas now...
Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts

May 2, 2006 in Leadership Issues | Permalink

First Name:
Email:
 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d83427ae0e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Emergent Four Letter Vocabulary:

» The comment that may never be posted from dcypl: blog
The Slice army is on the rampage again. Slice of Laodicea >> Out of the corrupt heart. The Ooze" is one of the most well known Emerging Church websites, and is often a proving grounds for the fact that this movement has an entirely different set of mo... [Read More]

Tracked on May 3, 2006 6:48:56 AM

Comments

The true mark of a good communicator is that (s)he has a command of language. Someone has said that swearing is "counterfeit currency for a bankrupt vocabulary." It is absolutely possible to communicate any and all emotions and thoughts with the use of words that aren't reduced to the lowest common denominator.

I appreciate the use of good, clean words to communicate truth. We must remember who it is we represent.

I can imagine what went through the mind of Judas, or David just fine without having to resort to words that tittilate, tempt or shock.

I don't think that p.o'd, or b.s. or crap, or any of these commonly used words are necessary. Not even to "make a point."

I also don't think you should need a dictionary to understand a presentation of the gospel. I just cant see "crap" as "apples of gold in settings of silver."

Posted by: pjlr | May 2, 2006 9:31:50 AM

"As usual... I cry out for balance."

What balance are you looking for? Shoot instead of Sh.. ? Flip instead of F...? I can't believe this is even a matter of discussion. If we are sanctified then our vocabulary is also. Which leads me to think those who can't decide if curses are inappropriate may need some Holy Spirit sanctification.

Posted by: John | May 2, 2006 9:54:39 AM

John... I thought I was pretty clear, but I'll try again.

I'm for not using the four letter words. And I'm also for not using the thees and thous of old-english to saintify human behavior. And I'm for not questioning someone's entire moral base because they use a word we wouldn't. And I'm for not using provacative language for the reason of just being provacative.

It seems that there is a middle ground (like pjlr is saying as well), meaning that we communicate true feelings without offending anyone and yet not making bible characters (like Judas) seem like saints all the time.

Seems (stinkin') logical to me. :)

Todd

Posted by: Todd Rhoades | May 2, 2006 9:59:50 AM

Just to preface myself, I have only used a cuss word once in my life (age 12) and I don't believe it's something we should do, but for discussion purposes:

There was an interesting article I read a couple of months ago regarding this same subject:
http://www.off-the-map.org/idealab/articles/idl0603-3-cussing.html
I took it to my small group just for discussion purposes. In the past we had talked about how the changing moral value of our society has an impact on what the church deems an unacceptable sin or not. (Not that any sin is acceptable, but there are some that keep people from leadership and even fellowship in the church.) For example, slavery was once accepted and defended by the church in America, society deemed it unacceptable (probably along with various churches) and then the church as a whole changed with society. Divorce was once very unacceptable in both church and society, now you can find divorcees in church leadership. Yes, I know I am overally generalizing, but hopefully you see the point I am making...

Anyway, I wanted to us to think through the cussing issue from the same viewpoint. It was interesting how the small group members reacted. Some were willing to discuss it with an open mind and talk through the points. One person got up and left the discussion and occupied herself with other things. She said that cussing (refering to today's cuss words) will never be accepted in the church. I countered with 'what if society's definition of what is an unwholesome word changes'?
I'm sure that my grandmother never thought that the church would accept women wearing pants and makeup, or allowing board games to be played.
Isn't it interesting that some of the things we allow in our homes and lives - that seem perfectly normal to us - would have brought shame to a Christian 100, or even 50 years ago?

Posted by: Andy | May 2, 2006 10:13:30 AM

I guess I look at it this way. If I were the CEO or CFO or some kind of C, I would expect my people not blowing street language around just to draw a point. When I was in the board room I doubt seriously that I would gratify anyone by speaking that way.

As a Christian, and most of the world appreciates what Christians are, be it that they don't agree with us, they ARE shocked and will continue to be drawn back by the "foul mouthed" worldly language of the street, in what ever language it is spoken in.

When the music industry released the garbage that flows into the nations air space, and called it "explicit" they were making a ploy to the more base individual who doesn't have control over their language. Punk and HM rockers have a field day there selling millions if not billions of dollars to our Christian youth. And we stand by and let them have their "rights" under the first ammendment.

btw, when I hit myself with the hammer the other day I distinctly remember saying, "OOOOOOO Lord!!!!"

Posted by: Jay Gainer | May 2, 2006 10:16:56 AM

In seminary I worked for UPS and that was a whole other education. My vocabulary was expanded greatly. So I know those words, and the people I run into at the movies or the store or wherever also know those words and use them liberally. There is nothing shocking about them. But there is nothing inherently intelligent about them either. Does the additon of crude language added to the realism of the piece? I doubt it. It certainly doesn't make it more creative or innovative. I know second graders who swear and cuss. So when I read the piece it just seemed like this guy was trying to be cool, to show his stuff for his audience.

I do not think that adding vulgarities makes our communication more attractive and engaging. And that needs to be goal.

Posted by: Kent | May 2, 2006 10:23:42 AM

Hey Kent, I think that was well said.

Todd

Posted by: Todd Rhoades | May 2, 2006 10:33:33 AM

I can vividly remember the first time I heard as a college student in ministry a Nationally Known Christian speak... He walked out on stage and said "How the F--- are you all doing tonight?" I walked out.
I just failed to see the humor in being 'immature.'
A few years ago our church staff was at a conference for pastors and this same man was on the docket. I leaned over to my Senior pastor (who came from a very liberal background) and I said, "I'll bet you lunch he swears in the first five minutes."
I won. Unfortunately.
There is a culture among Christian students (HS and College) that enjoys the shock value of offending others. An acquaintance of mine calls it "Cool Christian Rebellion." CCR runs rampant on CHRISTIAN college campuses. Read some blogs and you'll also find that these same students wish that Chapel was not a requirement at their CHRISTIAN College of choice or that their profs would stick to the text-books and not cross-reference from the Bible on current clasroom debates.
I still see the same issue. Immature Christians. So at the risk of offending them, let me cite Scripture... Paul addresses the issue of cultural practices that cause offense in 1 Corinthians 8. The thesis of the chapter is "if you feel free to indulge, don't do it in a way that offends your brother, or hinders a non-believer..." MY INTERP, and I will defend it elsewhere...
So what value is there to the Gospel in us flinging useless slang for effect. IMHO... less than none.

Posted by: Jeff | May 2, 2006 10:46:49 AM

In my experience, one of the attributes that very quickly marks you as a Christian to those who don't know you is the lack of cussing in your vocabulary. The unsaved seem to notice this very quickly, and to expect a certain standard of behavior as a result. To begin to throw cuss words around in an attempt to "be cool" or "fit in" is juvenile, and the unsaved -- make no mistake about it -- will see the farce for what it is, and lose respect for you as a result.

Posted by: Nora | May 2, 2006 11:16:46 AM

How about this as a solution, we stop making dramatized versions of the Bible. Peter cursed out those that accused him of being with Jesus. Does it tell us what he said exactly? No. Why? it's unimportant. If it was, God would have revealed it to us. Think about it.

Posted by: John | May 2, 2006 11:24:00 AM

John has a great point, if God wanted to reveal to us the failures of Peter's cursing, he would have. As John said, how about a dramatization of David's sin with Bathsheba, an X rated version. Or how about a movie on Lot and what happened in Sodom? Reality is not always an excuse for improper behavior. By the way, I spent 15 years in the car business, those guys really know how to swear.

Posted by: Bart | May 2, 2006 11:59:30 AM

To me the biggest issue is how we treat unbelievers who use profanity for whatever reason. I think that we as believers should hold a higher standard for our speech, but treat those who don't with grace and respect. I think that there is sometimes a significant insecurity in those who resort to foul language. If we treat them with arrogance we could lose a chance to introduce them to Jesus. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to adopt their speech in an attempt to create a "common language." While we may see a difference between "coarse words" and taking the Lord's name in vain, I suspect that many unbelievers don't see the difference.

Posted by: Bill | May 2, 2006 12:20:22 PM

I will confess to being something of a language snob; I like people to pronounce things right, to use good grammar and spelling and punctuation, and to use "moderate" language. I don't care for flippant use of words just for effect (though in carnality I will often do just that). I bemoan the reduction of our language to mere slang and street lingo - like, you know what I flippin' mean, you know?!?

Now, on the flip side (not the flippin' side!), I also appreciate reality and what I can learn from it. Three war movies come to mind: The Patriot, Braveheart, and We Were Soldiers. Each of them portrayed brutal reality and gave me a perspective of war that I never got from Tora, Tora, Tora; Bridge on the River Kwai; and other classic war films. I appreciated The Passion of the Christ for the same reason.

John commented above that knowing exactly what Peter said when he cursed was unimportant. I agree, but in order for me to feel what he felt, I need to somehow fill in the blanks. The Bible was written to and about real people, but we've turned them into neatly pressed flannelgraph cutouts. (If you don't know what that is, ask your parents!) In doing so, we have removed much of the passion of the Bible narrative and so taken it out of real life.

Peter was a fisherman by trade. I'm guessing that fishermen in the first century used language as "colorful" as they do today. During three years with Jesus, I expect that Peter's language was redeemed...but on trial night, his old nature took over and I think he probably went back to that BC (before Christ) language. I think the fact that he swore - and probably vehemently so - adds to the impact of both his denial and Jesus' subsequent expression of grace.

As for Judas, well...I don't know enough about him or the Essenes to know if the kind of swearing that "Real Life Preacher" attributed to him were part of his nature. My gut tells me they were not.

Posted by: Randy Ehle | May 2, 2006 12:55:10 PM

Nora, I think you have a great point about how quickly non-believers notice our language. It really destroys the credibility for us when we get shallow with our speech.

I am a bit of a word-snob as well and (rightly or wrongly) I tend to judge people on the quality of their speech.

Then again, I slip up and say a bad word every now and then. I used to have a filthy mouth until I was saved. Then when I had kids all it took was hearing my 3 year old say cr*p once to make me get even cleaner.


Re: authenticity. It takes much more intelligence and creativity to be authentic without being vulgar. In this day and age when I have to censor TV commercials for my kids, vulgarity is everywhere. It appeals to that lazy, baser side of our sin nature. I prefer to stretch my brain and try to draw word pictures without using "common" language.

I thought one of my favorite shows (Dog the Bounty Hunter) was great because they prayed before going out to catch the bad guys, but then when every other word is bleeped, I just couldn't let us watch it anymore. I agree with Jeff's interpretation of 1 Cor 8 in this regard also.

Posted by: Abbey | May 2, 2006 1:15:10 PM

Todd, I think you've articulated the right response: balance. The question, of course, is what that looks like. Two thoughts come to mind. The first is that language is fluid, and so words that couldn't be used yesterday can be used to today (e.g. 'crap'). This is not a universal phenomenon, but rather will tend to be geographically and culturally isolated. This is because a word's offensiveness is contextually determined (e.g. 'fag' used to refer to the process of combustion--but it has become a highly offensive term; 'suck', at least in come circles, is becoming as harmless as 'bummer'). Christians need to be aware of this, particularly in a time of increased communication, when we are exposed to language from cultures (and sub-cultures) not our own.
My second thought has already been articulated, but it consists in the Christian principle of self-sacrifice. We should strive, as Christians, to put aside whatever 'rights' we have, for the sake of those around us. Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. This includes swearing.
As a final note however, I must air the concern I have with Christians who, though having nobly discarded foul language, appear ridiculous in the alternatives they think of. "Ooo Lord" when you pound your finger with a hammer is fine, but when it becomes "Gee golly gosh, this flippin' hurts a dang lot"... echoes of Ned Flanders come ahauntin'. And honestly, the saying "s*** happens" strikes me as more true than "crap happens".

Posted by: Daniel | May 2, 2006 1:21:52 PM

I'm not the biggest fan of posting line after line of scripture but I think most are familiar with...

"For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man...good things ...the evil man...evil things
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken."
Matt. 12:34-36 (also Luke 6:45)

"Nor should there be any obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." Eph 5:4

"Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in SPEECH, in life, in love...."
1 Tim. 4:12

Do they or do they not, inpart or all, address the way we should be expressing ourselves? IMHO, any one who calls or thinks his/herself a Christian and openly uses profain language (especially in communicating the things of Christ) is completely out of line with basic scripture.
Of course I'm pretty sure Jesus nor the Apostles spoke in the King James with a slight British accent nor am I a fan of "Christianese" we so often use in church. Mainly I see cussin' the way others have shared, it's the language of arrogance and/or ignorance. (I love pjlr's "swearing is "counterfeit currency for a bankrupt vocabulary.")
I'll also 2nd Nora's comments on way we use our speech and being a witness.
As for hammers and fingers, it does show the condition of my heart. If things are "good" in my heart and I smash a finger, I'll express my pain & frustration in many creative ways & words but it won't be profain. If I'm not so "good" at heart, not only will I cuss, I'll end up having to repair much larger hole and I'll have a limp!
Ben E

Posted by: Ben E. | May 2, 2006 1:50:25 PM

Ben E. you are totally correct. Words are important. It's "profane" by the way, not "profain" (sorry!!! couldn't help it)... :-)

Posted by: Daniel | May 2, 2006 2:56:54 PM

Ok now we have been kind and considerate. Let's give the blog our "base" vocabulary. Like we would when we are in nonchristian circles and away from friends and family. Our mouth can't kiss our mothers and sound like a cesspool, can they? Do you eat with that mouth?

James said it best, "1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways. And,
1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain."

Why should we want to debase ourselves in the world's vulgarity?

Posted by: Jay Gainer | May 2, 2006 4:13:02 PM

Well "Captain Daniel Spell Check" do we feel proud of ourselves now? Hummm!?!
Got me on that one.
God Bless Bro.
Ben E

Posted by: Ben E. | May 2, 2006 4:25:18 PM

I find it humorous that every generation tends to think that the disciples were more like them than any other generation. Essenes retreated from the world. It is doubtful Judas' language would have been "cool" because of where he came from. So I doubt it was a very true picture of Judas.

I've got two things to say about it overall:
1) I have used "cuss" words for adverbs, adjectives, nouns, pronouns, etc. so I have plenty of experience with them. I don't have a problem with a guy (or gal) blurting out a "s***" or "d*** it" when something startles them or such because I know they are often just returning to their sinful roots. But to plan to use one of those words is unacceptable. Considering what TV allows now, if they won't let a word be used on public stations then I don't think we ought to use it from the pulpit/ church stage.

2) Some of this would depend on culture. I live in Texas. In my neck of the woods this is not kosher. I don't know where this guy was delivering this sermon but I can maybe be a little less offended, if it were a place where these words were not known as "bad" words. I'm not for sure that place exist though. I have spent time in professional locker rooms where most of these words are as common as "the" and "and" and even there people notice when a Lance Berkman doesn't use those words. There might be a place where those words are not associated with bad morals but Texas and I would bet most everywhere in America is not one of those places.

Posted by: jim | May 2, 2006 5:43:52 PM

I spent 24 years in the Army, so I've probably cussed more than anyone here. I tried to limit my use of four letter words to when I felt they were needed, and not make them part of my everyday vocabulary, but there were plenty of times I pulled them out to light someone up. In my last unit my Top Sergeant was a big teddy bear, so I was his designated "smoker", meaning when someone needed an attitude adjustment I did it.

I can tell you definitively that if you can't communicate without four letter words you need to work on your communication skills. And I don't believe such language is ever needed in a church, sermon, or pastoring.

The longer I was in the Army the more I came to realize that foul language did not "add color" to my communication, it did not enhance communication in any way, it did not make me a better communicator, it was a hindrance, a distractor from the point I was trying to get across. I found it was usually more effective to get very close to someone and speak softly, that way they had to listen to hear what I was saying and I could still make the point that I was very serious. It was a serious business and demanded serious communication.

But it was not as serious as communicating Jesus' message. From time to time something I said or did may have helped save someone's life, but that was here and now on earth. When you're communicating Jesus' message you're trying to save someone's eternal life, as well as thier life on earth, and you better be serious about communicating that message. The message had better be relevant, and in accordance with Jesus' teaching, but it had also better be seriously communicated. And flip comments, jokes, innuendos, and four letter words won't get you taken seriously.

P.S. Sorry for the rant.

Posted by: DanielR | May 2, 2006 10:29:01 PM

You have touched on an area that goes far deeper than you realize - one I bump into almost every day of ministry in my field as I explore the different characters of the scriputral narrative. I think this was the point of the first commentator ( What did Judas say? What did David wrestle with? How far did Peter fall?) - isn't that correct?

I am a Christian theatre artists and writer. I am a person who gave her life to Christ as a teenager at a production of Jesus Christ Superstar. That humanistic script approached by a cast of Christians without the broadway glitz was for me a "Passion" experience. I was confronted with the reality of the cross. I won't go into all the things that happened to me in that moment, but I will say that I was so very grateful that the characters were not clothed in King James (which I had heard all my life), and that the characters of the story, stepped off the pages and were in, some crazy way recognizable and therefore able to illuminate truth for me. Suddenly that story became my story. It was one I walked through. I was Peter. I was Judas. I was the soldier administering the 39 lashes. I was a sinner. I needed Jesus as my Savior. I was the centurion crumpled at the foot of the cross declaring, "Surely this was the Son of God."

As a Christian Artist you are often occupied with translating and illuminating, and reflecting scriptural truth through your work. You are sort of screaming, "Notice this. This is God. This is You. This is me."

Although I appreciate the comments that referred to the fact that we don't need graphic descriptions to understand lust (etc.) - the world and the unsaved might not have any semblence of a true definition of these lifestyles and words. Scripture sometimes needs to be illuminated and explored. Paul did it. Jesus did it.

I want to be clear. I know Jesus and Paul didn't use crude language. I have also never written a cuss word for a dramtic character to say. I think Christians should guard their language and work hard at communication. But, I have wrestled deeply with issues of how you present evil or sin. And, is it okay to ask an actor to portray Satan or someone who lies or murders or betrays.

Even though "out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. . .", do the words chosen actually change the heart content, or merely define the character who speaks them? For instance, if I cry "Ooooo Lord. . . " when I batter my thumb,is the rest of the sentence ". . . Jesus I need you to heal me." Or is it, " . . . this hurts like h***." A Pharisee may not swear, but I'm thinking he may still use the Lord's name in vain.

And if the solution suggested is that we shouldn't dramatize scripture, I'll say it is the stuff of parables and the gospel and the Great Commission. Because without dramtized scripture- even flawed dramatized scripture - I would be a very religious, intellectual pastor's daughter--and also very very lost. And, either way, I wouldn't swear.

Posted by: EP Hill | May 3, 2006 7:30:25 AM

You have touched on an area that goes far deeper than you realize - one I bump into almost every day of ministry in my field as I explore the different characters of the scriputral narrative. I think this was the point of the first commentator ( What did Judas say? What did David wrestle with? How far did Peter fall?) - isn't that correct?

I am a Christian theatre artists and writer. I am a person who gave her life to Christ as a teenager at a production of Jesus Christ Superstar. That humanistic script approached by a cast of Christians without the broadway glitz was for me a "Passion" experience. I was confronted with the reality of the cross. I won't go into all the things that happened to me in that moment, but I will say that I was so very grateful that the characters were not clothed in King James (which I had heard all my life), and that the characters of the story, stepped off the pages and were in, some crazy way recognizable and therefore able to illuminate truth for me. Suddenly that story became my story. It was one I walked through. I was Peter. I was Judas. I was the soldier administering the 39 lashes. I was a sinner. I needed Jesus as my Savior. I was the centurion crumpled at the foot of the cross declaring, "Surely this was the Son of God."

As a Christian Artist you are often occupied with translating and illuminating, and reflecting scriptural truth through your work. You are sort of screaming, "Notice this. This is God. This is You. This is me."

Although I appreciate the comments that referred to the fact that we don't need graphic descriptions to understand lust (etc.) - the world and the unsaved might not have any semblence of a true definition of these lifestyles and words. Scripture sometimes needs to be illuminated and explored. Paul did it. Jesus did it.

I want to be clear. I know Jesus and Paul didn't use crude language. I have also never written a cuss word for a dramtic character to say. I think Christians should guard their language and work hard at communication. But, I have wrestled deeply with issues of how you present evil or sin. And, is it okay to ask an actor to portray Satan or someone who lies or murders or betrays.

Even though "out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks. . .", do the words chosen actually change the heart content, or merely define the character who speaks them? For instance, if I cry "Ooooo Lord. . . " when I batter my thumb,is the rest of the sentence ". . . Jesus I need you to heal me." Or is it, " . . . this hurts like h***." A Pharisee may not swear, but I'm thinking he may still use the Lord's name in vain.

And if the solution suggested is that we shouldn't dramatize scripture, I'll say it is the stuff of parables and the gospel and the Great Commission. Because without dramtized scripture- even flawed dramatized scripture - I would be a very religious, intellectual pastor's daughter--and also very very lost. And, either way, I wouldn't swear.

Posted by: EP Hill | May 3, 2006 7:31:32 AM

'Captain Daniel spell check'? I just about rolled off my chair. :-) Thanks for taking it in stride, Ben E.
For me the biggest thing that I think of when I think of swearing is avoiding legalism. If a friend of yours is communicating something important to you, but in doing so uses a four-letter word... do you get hung up on that word? I say, let it slide! It has rightly been pointed out that we do no good by fixating on the speck in our neighbor's eye (beware the beam in your own!)--rather, for ourselves, we should consider it a challenge and a blessing to let our yes be yes, our no be no, and generally, our words be purposeful and kind.

Posted by: DanielF | May 3, 2006 9:32:16 AM

DanielF,
To me, it's all part of "From out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks."
When the overflow of my heart is as it should be, I'm much more at peace and take things instride. IE, no cussing even when startled or whatever...for the most part!
When it's the opposite, everything frustrates me and the speech going on in my head & heart is horrendous!
(Did I spell that right, hummmm? :P )
I may not verbalize what I'm thinking but God knows & hears my heart and it's not a pretty place in those times.
If someone is sharing their heart with me but I'm "hanging up" on the words they are using and judging them, that's wrong.
To me, I've enter the "white washed tomb" category.
I do not think cussin' makes you more "real" and just because sugar won't melt in you mouth because you speak so sweet doesn't make you a "good Christian."
Ben E

Posted by: Ben E. | May 3, 2006 11:55:08 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.