08.24.05
planecrashes, trainwrecks, and automobile accidents
You know how it is when you’re driving down the freeway, and all of a sudden traffic comes to a screetching halt. You’ve probably all slowed down your car and skidded to a halt, and craned your neck out the window to see the carnage of mangled metal. You can’t help feeling sorry for those involved, and terrified at the potential loss of life involved–yet, it’s nearly impossible not to look. You know what I mean, right?
Well, if you do, you understand how it is with me and blogs I disagree with. I’m just sickened by the hurt and pain these pieces of trash are causing, yet, I can’t help but look. One fantastic trainwreck that’s been in progress has been Ingrid Schlueter’s Slice of Laodicea. She’s got a few posts up about how both Anne Lamott and Donald Miller are backslidden and apostate “Christians.”
Her main argument is that they have ‘potty mouths’ as close as I can tell.
I think we all know I use words deemed by society to be salty. If you’re looking for a few examples, it’s probably not too fuckin’ hard for you to make your way to the search bar and find some. (At this point, I’m realizing that the trackbacks I sent over Ingrid’s way probably won’t be showing up on her site anytime soon. Even though I followed her rules for commenting, I imagine she’ll take this message as decidedly improper. Ah, well, que sera sera, right?)
Ingrid cites some scripture that’s (I think) meant to decry this ‘filthy toilet language’. She offers II Peter 3: 10-13. Here’s that passage in the NIV:
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
So…what does NOT using ‘the fuck word’ have to do with living a holy and godly life? (I think I get what it has to do with a ‘holier than thou’ life, but not a holy one.) I truly don’t understand how this is anything other than a cultural belief that’s been used to scare children off from words their parents just don’t like. It would seem that when kids figure out they’re neither blind, nor do they have hairy palms at the age of 14, that perhaps these lines of shit their parents fed them about ’swear words’ and various other more private activities might have been just that: a line of shit. The words in and of themselves have no inherent sinfulness–it’s the way they’re used that can be right or wrong (and a whole lot more words than some ‘unholy trinity’ of obscenity would fall into the category of ‘wrong’ if we’re honest with ourselves).
Ingrid faces a problem at her blog. I understand why she picks, wrongly, on swear-words. In my opinion, the reason is that people like Donald Miller and Anne Lamott are making the same arguments about seeker-centered, cracker-ass, self-help churches as she is. They (we) all believe that the current directions of the modern mega-church are a bad idea. Ingrid, though it seems, would love to lump many on the fringes of faith in with the mega-church movement. Ingrid’s scared, at least it seems to me, that her caricatureization of ‘the Emergent movment’ is incorrect. That they REALLY do want to see people engaging in a community.
Ingrid, if you don’t want to have us ‘filthy potty mouths’ over at your dinner table, that’s fine. You’ve the choice to invite whomever you so choose. But know this, trying to write people off, trying to detract from their spiritual value, trying to take away from their purpose, assasinating their character because their vision for the future of the people of Jesus Christ doesn’t match yours…that’s just sad.
I have to imagine that the Grace of God is big enough to mitigate some minor differences of political opinion in the Church. Thus, I’m not running around calling you apostate because you don’t believe in equal rights for women in the Church. I’d have hoped that you’d grant the same grace to those who use words that you just don’t like (and aren’t even forbidden in scripture.)
But, that’s just me, and, after all, my comment probably belies my fundamental misreading of the holy scriptures.
Lara said,
August 24, 2005 at 1:15 pm
I just stuck reading and poking around at these things sometimes. I mostly find it gets me too worked up.
You’re a stronger person than I am.
Heidi said,
August 24, 2005 at 1:21 pm
It was the day one of my closest friends was raped - the day the only coherent thoughts in my mind were a jumble of “fuck”, “shit”, and “damn” - that I truly realized the purpose of “swear words.”
When your best friend has been raped, words like “darn”, “oh my goodness”, and “shoot” don’t begin to cut it.
There was something of a release in my ability to express the anger in my soul.
I find the same thing when it comes to the bullshit I so often find in Christian circles.
Calling it what it is - bullshit - is so much better and more freeing than tiptoeing around it and calling it something else.
Words are just words - letters strung together. Christ looks at our hearts, not our words…and I think there are a lot of “good Christians” out there using a lot of religious language that Christ finds, well, obscene.
Thanks for your post.
Wounded Healer said,
August 24, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Good points. I have a “potty mouth” too. It seems that God has been working on much deeper things in my life and heart than the window dressing. I know that my words can, and have, hurt. So does silence. So does lying. So does manipulation. Much harm can be done without saying a single thing. “Church” words can cover deep sin and destruction.
Sad that people will expend so much energy in the wrong direction - with so much real need in and out of the church.
rick said,
August 24, 2005 at 2:04 pm
ugh. same here. commented on the don miller post, got reamed. one side seeks to be understood in conversation. the other side wants to torch the heretics. no middle ground when you’re casting stones, is there? sheesh.
but, that’s just me, and, after all, my comment probably belies my fundamental misreading of the holy scriptures.
Kevin said,
August 24, 2005 at 2:37 pm
“I think we all know I use words deemed by society to be salty.”
I think this line gets at the heart of it. Swearing is mostly about middle class mores. It has little to do with right and wrong. That’s not to say that swearing can be wrong. It depends on how you use these words. There’s a tremendous difference between me slamming my hand in a door and screaming, “fuck” and me calling you a fucking idiot because you cut me off in traffic.
It’s also arguable that words like shit and fuck are present in the original biblical text. I can’t read Hebrew, so I don’t know if it’s true or not. But I’ve had at least one Religious Studies professor (Lee Humphreys) tell me that and his speciality is Judaism, so he should know.
B-W said,
August 24, 2005 at 4:17 pm
Try Philippians 3:7, which the NIV translates as “But whatever gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.”
The word the NIV renders as “loss” is a Greek “curse word,” roughly equivelant to “shit.”
steve d said,
August 24, 2005 at 5:04 pm
I posted over there on the Donald Miller lambasting and I’m a bit surprised she even put it through…it was long and I used someone else’s work…namely St. Luke and St. Matthew…oh, and Jesus Christ.
We had a guest preacher at our church a few weeks back preach on Matthew 13: Parable of the Wheat.
She said something that I can’t get out of my head…
All too often we start suggesting to God whom He should bundle up for the fire. I wish Ingrid could see that she is doing just that. She’s so hateful. But you can’t use that word there because she’ll just say your a queer lover.
rabanes said,
August 24, 2005 at 6:26 pm
You might find my three articles on Schlueter’s attacks on me and RIck Warren also to be very enlightening. They can be found here:
http://abanes.com/ingridschlueter.html
http://abanes.com/alternatereality.html
http://abanes.com/alternatereality.html
I also have a few posts about her on my blog here
http://sliceoflaodiceachurch.blogspot.com/
Kyle said,
August 24, 2005 at 9:03 pm
I was going to play Devil’s advocate and ask why you feel it necessary cuss, but I think Heidi has already answered that pretty well.
You’re right. Words are words. Right or wrong, though, there are people who are offended by certain words, and always will be. I mostly avoid cussing to keep from offending others. It has a little to do with Paul’s instruction to avoid certain actions (like eating meat sacrificed to idols) so that those who are weaker in their faith will not stumble.
I didn’t come here to judge, though. I like reading your blog, and I have great respect for Anne Lamott.
elfdream said,
August 24, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I think somewhere in the mists of time I read that in the aftermath of the Norman invasion the Saxon language was considered ‘vulgar’. As in common. Proper people who were worth anything didn’t speak that way. However there was nothing inherently bad about the words, it was just prejudiced view held against the Saxons by the Normans.
The so called ‘vulgar’ words have stuck with us and have been given a second class status when in effect they started out as just the language of a conquered people.
Now anyone can feel free to check the facts on that one but reading over it, it makes sense.
If the words were so evil why are some words ‘bad’ in some countries and not ‘bad’ here. Shit is not a bad word in England while ‘bloody’ is not a bad word here. If the word were ‘bad’ would it not be ‘bad’ wherever it was spoken?
Kyle said,
August 24, 2005 at 10:55 pm
As you say, the value of words has nothing to do with their inherent qualities, and everything to do with the culture in which language is spoken. After all, words are nothing but arbitrary combinations of sounds that have come to represent particular ideas in a specific culture. To put it another way, language does not exist without culture.
So it is no small thing that a culture decides which words are offensive. I think it’s useful to think of words in terms of their effect on people (After all, the entire purpose of language is communication). It seems to me that cuss words are used specifically BECAUSE they are offensive. If one’s intent in using them is to offend, is that a Christlike attitude?
That said, I understand the urge to use strong language to express extreme feelings of anger or frustration, which may not necessarily be directed at a particular person. Like Heidi said, it’s important to examine our hearts, and judge our reasons for the language we use.
Brandon said,
August 24, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Well, Christ WAS a pretty offensive motherfucker from time to time…so I suppose it’s possible that that it’s Christlike to be offensive.
Kyle said,
August 24, 2005 at 11:09 pm
I don’t think Christ’s primary intent was necessarily to offend. People were offended because Christ preached a radical message that called people to change their lives and challenged the basis of their society.
That strikes me as a little bit different from words whose primary purpose is to offend.
Brandon said,
August 24, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I see what you’re saying, Kyle. Really, I do. But, who’s using words to offend? AND, shouldn’t context determine the words that are ‘offensive’?
ninjanun said,
August 24, 2005 at 11:24 pm
I think Christ, being able to see inside people’s hearts, knew damn well what sorts of things would be offensive to what sorts of people.
For instance, I read the gospels, and think, “how can a rich, immoral bastard of an idolater hear the sermon on the mount and NOt be offended by it?”
I think the Gospel message itself is highly offensive to every person who is entrenched (by which I mean benefits by privilege, prestige, power, identity, or material gain) in a society, system, power, etc., that is opposed to God’s ideas of equality, grace, and mercy.
Kevin said,
August 24, 2005 at 11:37 pm
The problem with Paul’s don’t cause your brother to stumble injunction is that it is essentially used to play to the least common denominator. You can’t avoid doing everything just because it might offend someone or cause them to stumble. If you did, you’d sit in your house all day with the blinds drawn shut. And based on the New Testament, I would say that Jesus on occasion does go out of his way to offend a people.
Leighton said,
August 25, 2005 at 3:05 am
B-W is right, and Paul also swore at the Galatians. Not to metion that in Acts, Peter’s response to Simon Bar-Jesus who wanted to buy apostolic healing powers is more accurately rendered “To hell with you and your money!” (Translators, unfortunately, are bound by the whims and wishes of their target audiences to water down the intent of some passages.) There’s also plenty of colorful language in the prophets and psalms.
If you want to eliminate all profanity, the first place to start is by getting rid of the Bible.
the sympathetic vibration said,
August 25, 2005 at 3:26 am
B-A-N-A-N-A-S! Bananas!
I’m a bit perplexed by this Focus on the Family article entitled “Is my child becoming homosexual?”. (discovered at TIM. There are a number of things I could say about it, but The Internent Monk said it much better than I ever could….
Steve J said,
August 25, 2005 at 4:26 am
Brandon, I’m with you on this one. If people are offended by swearing I try not to do it around them but those conversations will always be guarded by trying not to let slip the odd expletive
I do have a question though.
How do you pick your fights?
using this as an example I doubt you will sway Ingrid’s opinion at all but that doesn’t mean what you have to say isn’t worthwhile. but what pushes you over the line from knowing you’re talking to a brick wall to shouting from the rooftops?
Steve
Steve said,
August 25, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Well…I have had my Ingrid baptism. I have commented about her on my site (honestly we attacked her - God please forgive us). But anyway, went over there to see what was happening, and also chimed in on the Don Millar article.
The dialogue is frustrating and of course there is no changing her mind. She cannot admit even once that she might be missing the point, taking things out of context, etc. Ugh!
But it is still important, I think, to not let her “clones” dialogue un-challenged over there on her site. I think we owe it to all that is right and holy to enter into a conversation with her to the best of our ability without attacking. I am going to give it a shot for a few days.
Then if it doesn’t go well, the men in white jackets may be taking me away. AAAAAAGGGH!
dorsey said,
August 25, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Ninjanun (besides having the coolest name in blogdom) has hit the nail on the head. The true message IS “highly offensive to every person who is entrenched…in a society, system, power, etc., that is opposed to God’s ideas of equality, grace, and mercy.”
From where I stand, the polar opposite of Jesus’ message is religion. I like Jay Bakker’s definition: “Religion is a false perception of holiness that focuses on law and kills the true message of Christ.” That’s why people like Ingrid are vile. They have to twist the truth in order to maintain control, because, in the end, it’s about power, which is in turn, about self. I’m guessing Ingrid has a little dominatrix in her somewhere. There’s a post of a similar nature on my blog (control, I mean, not Madame Ingrid’s pleasure dungeon).
Peace.
P.S. Oh yeah, I almost forgot my bad language…
Damnit! Religious bastards! (there, much better…)
Random Ravings said,
August 25, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Heretics!
Two of my favorite “Christian” authors have been labeled heretics! Read about why Donald Miller and Anne Lamott are going to hell, because they use the “F word”. One of the comments on the Anne Lamott post even questions Philip Yancey’s salvation! M…
steve d said,
August 25, 2005 at 12:32 pm
I’ve been in the Donald Miller conversation there as well. I’m trying to be as polite and tender as possible. It’s frustrating because I’ve been urged by *them* to read the Scriptures in context (when I’ve challenged their notion of handing Donald Miller over to satan) but yet, when I’ve also challenged them on equating cussing to abortion, they throw out scriptures on oath taking and taking God’s name in vain.
I boil that down to idiocy. It’s hard to be nice to idiots.
It’s also hard not to just lash out at someone who has the audacity to say something like “I wonder how they’ll feel when God tells them He never knew them.”
Since when is the Gospel about saying “Take that!”
Again, it’s hard to be nice to idiots. God help me.
steve d said,
August 25, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Oh, I also tried posting a comment to her Lamott post…because she said that Donald Miller was bi-sexual. I asked in that comment where she got her information. Guess she didn’t want to have someone proving her wrong on her own site.
dave said,
August 25, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Not that I am trying defend Ingrid, but in her defense she did not say that Miller was a bi-sexual. She said that he had a crush on a bi-sexual, which is true. He talked about his crush on Ani Difranco in Blue Like Jazz.
steve d said,
August 25, 2005 at 2:41 pm
“The motto of these types is, “I can be a Christian and curse like a drunken sailor, I can be a Christian and have a crush on a bi-sexual, (Donald Miller), I can be a Christian and call Christians I don’t agree with vulgar names.”
I guess she was quoting Miller in there…not saying he was a bi-sexual. My bad.
Oh, for the love of God... said,
August 25, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Cursing and Taking God’s Name in Vain
Brandon wrote about Ingrid’s insistance that Donald Miller and Anne Lammot are clearly not truly Christian — because they curse.
Good fucking God. (Is that enough for a start?)
Caveat: I have not read Ingrid’s site. Probably won&…
Kevin said,
August 25, 2005 at 8:30 pm
Don’t feel bad, steve. My comments didn’t even get put on the site. Maybe because I pointed out that George Bush doesn’t act like a Christian either?
Steve C said,
August 26, 2005 at 5:35 am
Interestingly enough…I just went there to see if she posted my latest comments and she chose not to. I was polite, courteous and non-offensive. I just disagreed and asked her more questions and clarifications. I guess she doesn’t like that.
Also, I clicked the trackback that linked back to this site Brandon and it said there was no post to read. It was your site but had been altered somewhat. What gives with that…I guess she can edit those too?
bananie said,
September 5, 2005 at 3:33 pm
brandon, you have created a monster.
i am now addicted to s.o.l.
i’ve tried writing thoughtful comment postings (in vain) to ingrid’s judgment on present day sodom via flood, but she won’t even print them. it’s amazing.
that site is truly a trainwreck. it so reminds me of landover baptist. the theology and caricature is equally over the top.
sigh.
i’m thinking that someone needs to do a s.o.l. friday, a la slacktivist’s left behind fridays, celebrating the week’s best of.
whaddya think?
Brandon said,
September 5, 2005 at 5:34 pm
oooh,
That sounds great, bananie. The question is, who to nominate?
…
;)
jeff m said,
September 16, 2005 at 4:26 pm
I just read the “filthy language” article. Very insightful.
Truly filthy language is SLANDER, GOSSIP, BACKBITING. The use of “curse words” is a far cry from the REAL vulgarity of belittling those who we think are less than ourselves.
chad Reisser said,
September 23, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Late to the thread… sorry.
I would just like to point out that I actually managed to get the word “Shit” through on my post on the Donald Miller thread at Slice of Laodicea. I wrote an entry about it over at www.addisonrd.com.
While I am not totally proud of the post, not doe to the swearing, but due to the fact that I shot it off withing the first 10 minutes of my FIRST time experiencing SOL. It doesn’t really make a point… it just tells them they’re stupid.
My name is Chad, and I am a Slice addict. Thanks for inviting me to the club.