So I guess the ends justify the means?

As a pastor of a local church, I am not sure how to respond to the reading of poetry laced with profanity - for two reasons: (1) Ephesians 4:29 states that no unwholesome word should be spoken (recoginizing of course that an F-bomb is not considered "unwholesome" by a younger generation); (2) we should be cautious of "the ends justifies the means" approach to ministry. Thanks

Would it have been as real and raw without the profanity? Sometimes the realness and rawness of our heart comes through despite our language.
I admire the pastor standing with his value--it may not be my value, but we as leaders must determine what hills we will surrender, what hills we will fight on, and which ones we are willing to die on.

Pastor Sares is not so much an example of "ends justifying the means, but more like "is the return worth the price?". He lost support and integrity in the eyes of some, gained them in the eyes of others. I find the poet's actions of trying to accomodate those who might be offended to be a noble thing. Pastor Sares declared this to be his target group, and he put his chips on the table in support of her. While I disagree with his decision, I do admire a guy who is so committed to his vision that he takes to risk to support them.

Can you post the poem if it was so powerful?

I figure there are at least three things we have to know to know what language is appropriate or not: Context, context, and context.

(Cultural, spiritual, and literary?)

Rich.

Let's see the poem - post it, please. Context is everything.

There are thousands of pastors who are ministering to traditional congregations. I love the fact that Sares is willing to do things that would even cause him harm in order to reach out to those that most people write off.

When it comes to whether the language itself is offensive I believe that offensive is all about context. I think too often we try to pretty up our walk with God, when God in writing the Bible put in the good with the bad. It was offensive for David to disrobe and dance before the ark, but in context we teach people to act like Him in worship.

Worship means that we are open about who we are and what we are before the Lord, and while that honesty might not be the same in all situations, but if this person was honestly expressing her worship, I can't find a way to condemn her.

Well it was good to read the outcome. It seems to me that Makkai did end up showing concern for the feelings and sensibilities of others, in editing some of the language out and in giving an R rated warning. The pastor took a risk that paid off. Had it gone the other way, it would not have been pretty. Perhaps he knew Ms. Makkai and his congregation well enough to take this risk. One thing it points to: the church needs to create space where people can express their lives and the lives of those they know with honesty.

Personally, I know many churches where that is not going to happen this dramatically in, say, a Christmas program, but it could still happen in meaningful ways in other venues.

I still have a concern for other people's sensibilities in this. I know many older people who would have been very much offended by such an occurrence in their own church. If such people are present, one needs to be careful for them. At the same time, the church needs to show care for those who are experiencing brokeness and can't dwell in a place that seems like it is asking them to pretend all is prim and proper.

Ichabod. What else can we justify in the name of seeker sensitivity? Apparently anything we want to.

What better place is there than the church to express ones feelings about God? (even anger and hatred). What better place can someone who is struggling receive prayer, encouragement, or even a kick in the pants? Would a bar or club be better? A place where the enemy is waiting to snare someone who is broken and vulnerable? I definitely think the church is the appropriate place, regardless of the language that is used. The church should be a place for people to be real before God and each other.

I go to Scum, and I am thankful that I have a place to go where I can be open and honest. I don’t feel pressured to be someone I am not. I don’t feel the need to put on my “happy Christian Sunday face�. I am who I am and accepted for that. I have the freedom to work through my junk, not feel ashamed, and get the help I need. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same thing about the churches I grew up in.

Still not sure how I feel about the F-bomb in worship. I do know that Biblical language is a lot courser than in most of our congregations (Ezekiel 23:20 for example).

I wonder if those who are upset at the use of the F-bomb in Scum's worship service are as riled about the gossip that is prevelent in most of our's.

I hadn't wanted to comment on this, but in reading the on-line version of Christianity Today, there is an article called "Our Missing Moral Compass". CT is concerned that Christians have lost their moral way. If you post this poem, as some have asked, CT will actually be promoting vulgar language. Do you think they want to do that?

Broad is the way that leads to destruction. When a church allows people to think that vulgar language is "real", more real than what God originally said, it’s compass is pointing those people to that broad path.

Can someone warn these people before it's too late?

It was a refreshing opportunity to walk the streets of Denver with Mike Sares. After an hour of bumping into those invisible neglected many, Mike, with a slight smile, turned and said,
"This is my mission field." SCUM is like no other church that America experiences. It targets these lost souls from the not so nice fabric of the city, who do not fit neatly into our boxes.

The shocked sensibilities of older Christians might be regretable, but only disappointedly so.
Francis Schaffer, in the last century, repeatedly reminded the church at large, that God is never taken by surprise nor is He shocked by what we do or say. Our 'shock' is little more than the outworking of our own shame just or imagined. We try, in these pitiful efforts to defend God, from these assults on His character, as though He needs our defense.

This lost generation that can be found on the streets of our country, in their brutal honesty and raw seeking of truth, are those who God will never find lukewarm. I fear that my generation and those older who are easily offended are in danger of being spewed, that is, SPAT AS A HAWKER, from His mouth, if we don't get over ourselves. Stay the course Mike.

Before I begin, I will note that I am quite emotionally involved in this situation, so I will be as diplomatic as possible.
First, a response to a couple things said in the last thread: RJSteve said, “Whatever precedent they [the church leaders] set now will be with them a long time.� I agree wholeheartedly. I believe that teaching our congregations and our children that being honest and open about their feelings is probably one of the best precedents we can possibly set. Gary G made a comment about showing concern for the “sensitive souls� in the congregation, and while I can say that such a thing is true, he should have clarified what form of sensitivity he was referring to. Some of the most caring, sensitive souls I know drop the F-bomb. (And I’m a seminary student!) And since almost everything else that is vicious has been addressed, including the horrifically rude Ingrid Schlueter, I will add only this: Bill Reid did not read the article and Jeff Winter (denominational church guy) has his head in the sand if he thinks these "problems" don't happen within congregations.
Second, I object quite vehemently to the use of the terms “cursing/swearing� and “vulgarity� when used to describe the words themselves and not the intent. I object to “cursing/swearing� because it allows a straw man argument against these words and does not appropriately reflect the ontological content to these words… Nothing about the “f� word necessarily denotes an oath to God or the call for damnation on a soul. Vulgarity is also a poor term which was used by the aristocracy of England to enforce a class distinction between them and the commoners. (Anyone who objects to vulgarity should also object to the term “you� which is the vulgar for of “thou.�)
“Cussing� is a much better term.
Finally, I would like to commend Prof. Blomberg, Mr. Dunbar, Dr. Baker, Pastor Sares, and the beautiful and talented paramedic, poet, and priestess Mary Kate Makkai for handling a situation as ugly as this with grace and clarity.

May God have mercy on us all,
-Dripnote (AKA: James Chauncey Hutton)

While being fascinated by this whole story, I find the postings even more interesting. This certainly provoked responses from what I would call the "dark side". I will be upfront...if I was the pastor, the poem would not have been read with the F-bombs. But like a previous poster I also realize I lack context..people,church culture and history, personalities, relationships, personal histories. I am not in a position to judge Pastor Sares or Mary Kate, I can only say what I would have done in that situation. Ichabod ? Rebellious woman ? Come on folks. You can't possibly be qualified to make those kinds of judgement. God bless the folks at "Scum of the Earth".

Imagine Isaiah debating whether or not he should use the analogy of a bloody menstrual rag when trying to describe our righteous acts before a holy God. I think the comparison was made precisely because of it's provocative nature, not in spite of it. It was meant to shock people into action. I know Christians who cringe when that verse is brought up in a church service, but unfortunately not because it reminds them of their sinfulness. Or how about Jeremiah, who compared Israel to a horny she-camel sniffing around in the wind for her next sexual partner. Whoa! Take it easy Jeremiah! Couldn't you have used something a bit less suggestive? What are you trying to do, get a rise out of people?

I am well aware that metaphors such as these are not the norm, probably because they would lose their meaning if overused, but when used appropriately they can be quite powerful.

IMHO, this is simply pathetic. What more in the name of postmodernism?

Freedom of speech~~poetic license~~creative juices...all serve a wonderful purpose in making this world so beautifully diverse. However, I
cannot imagine my own response, even with a heartwrenching poem, to hearing language in a church, let alone in a church service...especially when seated with small children who we've worked so hard to raise with a moral compass that includes no foul language.
Would the "depth and meaning" of the poem have been lost without the F bomb? Is anything lost in the translation if we choose to emit cursings?
God bless the pastor who took the risk...and thank heaven for a loving God who worked in the hearts of the congregation to bring healing. I wonder though, was it worth the offense?

So, this is where the church is "emerging" to?
Dripnote- nice try, lots of big words and a totally hollow argument.
What was man created for? To glorify God
What is the purpose of the church? Check out I Corinthians 12 - we are to be doing the work of God. If the church is the mouth of God on earth, then it should never get close to needing to be cleaned out with soap. To be doing the things that Jesus would do if he were physically here on earth - be "Christ-like", lead people to a knowledge of Christ as Lord and Savior and stick with them until they are discipled to maturity in Christ. It is interesting that Christ did not need to dip into the gutter to draw out language that would shock people into following him. Even Bill Cosby would condemn you for your lack of vocabulary in needing to use foul language to make your point. Get the focus off of yourselves and back on the All-Mighty Creator that we are to be worshipping when we come together. GOD is the reason that we gather for worship and the only one deserving of our worship. How was He worshipped when this poem was read?

There’s always been a large battle in the church over what “art� is about – is it supposed to represent the moral ideal, or is it supposed to be reflective of the human experience? Both are appropriate in the right context, and many of the problems in the church occur when one is shunned in favor of the other.

I don't have answers, just more questions. I appreciate hearing, though, about pastors and Christians who are willing to deal with the questions and uncertainties because they love others, rather than using propriety as an excuse to avoid wrestling with things.

Are those of us who are offended by the F-word just as offended by gossip in the church? Of course we are! Unfortunately, I'm offended by it almost every week in our church. Stop taking cheap shots based on your own biased presumptions about those who disagree with you.

I'm wondering if the "F-bomb" would do what the author wanted it to do. I'm wondering if it would detract from the overall message and simply draw attention to itself.

kgp

The fact that this even up for discussion is mind boggling. It's not because the use of the word is so hurtful (sticks and stones..) but the sheer inanity of it all. Obviously, postmodernism deems it necessary for more deconstruction.

Someone touched on a deeper cultural issue re: what makes a word bad.
I recognize that our culture pretty much defines the F-word as the worst of all possible language, but casually uses "Oh my God". I'm not entirely sure that God would define those two in exactly the same order!
Howard Hendricks commented a few years ago that when someone comes to Christ, he recommends that they drop "God" and "Jesus" out of their casual vocablary first.
I can't really evaluate a poem I haven't seen or heard, but I would guess that dropping all the F-bombs out would not have renedered it entirely impotent.
Jesus definitely wasn't afraid to use strong language, but I don't see Him attempting to shock His listeners with toilet language. White washed tombs and brood of vipers are strong but not dirty.

I appreciated the reasoning before the "bomb", even if I don't agree with it. It's good to stand for your convictions, it's better when your convicitons are rooted in Scripture.

That's how I see it,
John

I am intrigued by this discussion and find it very relevent in today's world. As a gen-x'er I find much of church language insincere and hypocritical because it is so sensored and 'clean.' No one talks the way church folks talk - and I don't believe church folks never use profanity.

"And we still give artists a lot of freedom to express themselves."

I suppose nudity will be next in expressing ourselves in worship of God and they'll use the same pitiful reasoning. The post modern church is way off from the 1st century church.

I absolutely love Anne Lamott and appreciate her language. We used the audio book version of "Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith" for our Sunday night bible study for college students. It was a big hit for all of us. To hear Anne speak those words in her own voice was very powerful.

I'm wondering if you could make Mary Kate's poem available for those who want to read it. *I'd* love to!

I ache when I think about kids and teens today. They're watching television and movies where profanity is common. It's "normal." It's regular. It's hard for me to hear the "f" word and not think of a coarse sexual act. How can I worship when my mind is envisioning distortion? The f-word perverts a holy union. It's so common, many people don't think about its connotation. It's twisting a great gift that God has given mankind. How can it help me to worship? Has the poem been posted? Are we drawing too much attention to people, and forgetting that "it's not about us?"

I know people need to be cared for in the state they're in, but I just can't see how a poetry reading with f-words can be classified as part of worship. Let's do soul-care. But it's not worship. God is awesome, He is worthy, and He can be accessed without words that could hurt those trying to be near Him. Poetry has its place. F-laced poetry? Does damage to my spirit. Do I need to expand? Do I need to walk in younger shoes? God, help me to be who You want me to be. But I don't want to lose my joy in the midst.

Foul language is foul language is foul language.
Whatever the purpose and the context our worship should reflect the wonder and beauty of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is altogether lovely. I doubt that foul language is needed to offer worship. When you look at Revelation and what the angels sing and say to our lovely Lord, their language is not foul.
Pastor Jed

Before I became a Christian I was exposed to and intrigued by a book that claimed to discuss erotic situations in dozens of chapters without using one vulgar, or earthy term. I won't mention the title of the book so as not to tempt anyone to take a look at it themselves.

I read the whole thing as a 15 year old adolescent and was amazed at how many different ways a skilled writer can describe something as basic as the sex act without once resorting to f-words or any other word we consider to be cussing, swearing or offensive language.

I maintain that a person can be just as offensive and/or descriptive without using certain language. I would encourage the young Mary Kate to develop her writing skills in mastering the English language which is rich in options for describing just about any emotion.

As one prominent writer has said: Swearing is counterfeit currency for a bankrupt vocabulary."

If one is interested in publishing their work, or reading it publicly, there is no excuse for laziness in editing and seeking out the best possible word for what you are trying to communicate. I just can't see that the f-word really is the best alternative, especially in a culture that uses it so frequently that it really doesn't have a shock value anymore.

Quote from pjlr "especially in a culture that uses it so frequently that it doesn't really have shock value anymore."

Uh, based on the wide variety of opinions, I would say that it does have shock value. But I would agree that words are culturally bound. Take for example "fag" or "faggot". Both are commonly accepted as derogatory terms for a homosexual person. However, in a novel from earlier days, the word faggot would be easily recognized as referring to a bundle of sticks. In Britain, a fag could refer to a cigarette. Seventy years ago, the word dick referred to an private detective. Not so much anymore. Words drop in and out of the vernacular all the time, and it's all about understanding the CULTURE and CONTEXT in which they were used, in this case the unique culture that is Scum of the Earth Church. Why do we school our seminary students in Hebrew, Greek, and historical studies? So that they can understand culture and context. Imagine a person living in the year 2158 discovering that, in 2005, the verb "googled" did not mean "to have an extramarital affair" but rather "to look up a topic using the popular search engine called Google."

Tim, you wrote:
IMHO, your use of these metaphors in Isaiah and Jeremiah prove exactly the opposite point you are trying to make. While both, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used graphic and provocative images to draw Israel a clear picture of her state, they didn't resort to gutter language to make that point. Once again, the truly creative (and who's more creative than the Lord?) can draw a picture with their words that presents an R or even X rated image using G rated language.

Tim: You lifted a small part of my comment that suited your intentions while avoiding the main issue I was addressing.

There are better ways, especially for someone who fashions themselves as a poet and who should have a greater command of the English language if she wants to truly express herself.

Also one has to respect the venue. If invited to the White House I don't think I'd feel the liberty or right to slap the president on the back and say, "How the f*** are you doing Georgie?"

People who come to a church service expect a level of decorum in the church. While it may be true that we can be overy stuffy, I'd prefer to err on the side of good manners. A church service is not a therapy group, but a place that has been designated for the worship of God. He is our audience and he should be treated to our best behavior and speech.

I doubt that resorting to the lowest common denominator does justice to what she is trying to convey. I am simply saying that she can and should be encouraged to do better in expressing her feelings.

Call me dumb, but what does "IMHO" stand for?

(Note from UrL: In my humble opinion it stands for in my humble opinion.)

In a recent sermon, my wife asked why people came to church on Sunday. She said it was important to come not just to sing your favourite songs, but to worship God. She was verbally mauled by a member of the congregation because she had "accused" this member of coming only to hear the choir sing.

Others are offended because we worship Jesus - after all, they say, he isn't God but points to God. (I'm not going into Christology, but our doctrines acknowledge God as Father, Son and Spirit)

How do we know that the f-word is more offensive than any particular act or word in the Bible? And even if pastor Mike made the wrong choice, I see nothing in the Bible that lets us hang a good man for one mistake. Even David got forgiven when he repented!

Though Jesus didn’t dip into “gutter language� (other than to call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,� a none-too-kind term in those days), Paul certainly did. If you don’t believe me, you can look into the Greek of 1Cor. 4:13: “We have become the Scum of the Earth, the s*** of the world.�

Anyone who says that Mary Kate Makkai is lacking in vocabulary or in need of “develop[ing] her writing skills in mastering the English language� (to quote pjlr, who also mistakenly referred to the 29 year old Kate as “young�) only shows how utterly ignorant they are of the skills and talents Ms. Makkai exhibits. She could – and actually did, in the other thread – write circles around anyone else I have seen post here thus far (with the possible exception of Craig Blomberg). Such an assertion, to anyone even remotely familiar with Kate’s writing, is laughable.

Finally: How was God worshipped when this poem was read? By giving Him a sacrifice of effort, creativity, honesty, and by showing him how a Christian has learned to love Him more by learning how to love the least of all people.

pjlr – The point that I and my fellow Scummers are trying to make here is that Kate was not, as you put it, “resorting to the lowest common denominator.� Kate has a wide and varied vocabulary and specifically chose the f-word because of its utter appropriateness in the larger context of the poem. Quote your prominent writers all you want (remembering, of course, that prominent does not equal skilled). I can quote you just as many prominent and talented writers who disagree. (Coincidentally, if you really want to read some dirty writing, take a look at Shakespeare.)

And one other thing: Where was it ever stated that Scum of the Earth is a postmodern church? I am well versed in the philosophies of Rorty, Fish, Foucault, Nietzsche, and Kant (the latter two being more foundational to postmodernism than explicitly postmodern) and I have never seen anything like them espoused from the pulpit at Scum.

-Dripnote (AKA: James Chauncey Hutton)

Oh, I almost forgot: "I suppose nudity will be next in expressing ourselves in worship of God."
-Merle Jett

Actually, nudity predates the f-word in worship of God. One need only take a trip to the Sistine Chapel to learn this.

-Dripnote

How about posting the poem or pointing us to a url that has it? It seems a bit superfulous to comment about a poem that none of us has seen/read....

It might help to keep in mind that there is nothing inherently evil (or good, for that matter) about words. I doubt, for example, that any of us are offended by the word "shirt." So if we remove the single letter "r" from that word, is it suddenly transformed from something harmless into something evil (or at least vulgar), or is something more complex going on here?

How about the word "merde"? Probably meaningless and therefore inoffensive to most readers -- unless you happen to know French. "Merde" is French for shirt without the r. Note that our offensiveness to such words is culturally bound, not absolute.

Some have already pointed out that there is similar ambiguity with words like "God" and "Jesus." That is, the speaker's attitude while using such words largely determines whether they are perceived as sacred or profane -- not the words themselves.

So I would agree with those who have argued that context is essential -- and that we should be slow to criticize and quick to encourage those who are willing to take huge personal risks in order to reach lost and hurting people who might never darken the door of most of our churches.

Having said that, I must confess that I struggle with Eph. 4:29 and similar passages which tell us not to use foul or unwholesome language. Obviously, Paul was not referring to the F-bomb or any other Modern English swear word when he wrote that -- but he was referring to something. Are there any Greek/NT scholars out there who might shed some light on this for us?

Like others have posted, I cannot judge a poem that I have not read or a situation in a church with which I have no personal experience. However, pure common sense tells me that when supporters of a ministry feel compelled to evacuate a CHRISTMAS SERVICE because of R-rated content and leaving results in tears and embarrassment, then something is amiss. Rom. 14 plays a role here.

I risk being glib but I encourage you to not destroy the work of God for the sake of the f***-word. If your brother is distressed by what you ( say) then are you acting in love according to scripture?

The principle applies to language or really any other real stumbling block that we encounter - drugs,alcohol,pornography to name just a few. I know so many who have been convicted in their hearts that their use of profanity was contrary to God's will and they suffered in remaining faithful to that conviction. We should be sensitive to the needs of others. I can imagine the poems message and imagery would have been just a powerful without the expletives.

People, please!! Why are we more interested in an f-bomb than the person that said it or the person that wrote about it in a poem? What makes an f-bomb so interesting compared to these people? Living and breathing people, people with souls? People with stories and lives? Stories and lives just waiting for God's next move? Here we are, the Church, obsessing about f-bombs while the very stuff of God and God-lives goes unnoticed right under our noses. Lord help us.

Two things come to mind.

On the one hand, the books of Job and Psalms show us that worship of God IS being completely honest, raw, unsanitized. We can and should bring everything before God, not just the pretty, nice, appropriate things in our lives, but the ugliness, hurt, and anger, too. I don't think that the poem in question was immoral per se.

But then the passage in Corinthians comes to mind where Paul talks about abstaining from behaviors that cause other brothers and sisters to stumble, even if those behaviors are not immoral in and of themselves.

So which is it? Do we let it all hang out before God, or do we clam up for fear of offending something?

pjlr says:
A church service is not a therapy group...

I certainly hope it is in some way. I hope church services are places for healing, for comfort, for growth. In the case of this poem, what was a tremendous blessing for some was a terrible scourge, even an insult, for others. No matter what Pastor Sares decided, someone would go away without the same blessing and restoration of spirit they otherwise would have had.

That's why this was a tough call. I most churches, the ranks of the offended would far outnumber the ranks of the blessed, and it would be easy. But at SCUM, it wasn't so clear.

My inclination in a situation like this is to err on the side of the weaker brother, who does not yet understand that God can take, and wants us to give him everything in our lives, even the F-bomb. But my situations come in different contexts.

This site is called "Out of Ur". To me that means "Get out of Ur", NOT "I'm from Ur and my actions will reflect it". If we are providing oversight to a body of believers, part of that oversight is to teach/nurture/encourage a new walk of life that is without offense.

I recently attended a "required" workshop in my workplace called "Respect in the Workplace". I must watch my words "in the world". Should I not watch them also "among brethren"?

Well, to address your entire comment, all I can say is that I do believe in propriety in worship (and other venues) and so does everyone at Scum, this was just an exception that was made after much thought and consideration. One fundamental difference lies in the level of decorum that is expected at our respective churches - you prefer to err on the side of good manners, and we preferred (in this ONE instance) to err on the side of taking a risk. The other fundamental difference is in what we each consider to be "gutter language" or "lowest common denominator" speech, even when one person is simply quoting another. As I doubt that we will reconcile on these issues, I will not put forth any more arguments. All in all, I have (mostly) enjoyed this discussion.
Have a champion day,
Tim

Friends, this is a Romans 14:6 kind of issue. I'll paraphrase: If you want do drop the F-bomb in church, and your pastor decides that he's going to support you, you drop that f-bomb, and praise God. If you don't like the F-bomb, don't say it, and praise God.

Some of you refuse to take into consideration this fact: Some of those lost sheep out there, to whom Jesus, the Great Shepherd and Commissioner, is sending us to rescue, will listen to a minister who drops a cussword here and there, and they won't listen to those who won't. It's a fact. Deal with it. If that's not your mission field, stay out of it, and pray for and bless those who choose it. Please attempt to discern between two things: 1. Biblical truth and your cultural context or upbringing. 2. Biblical truth and personal taste. Please check out Paul's leter to the Romans again in it's entirety. Last I heard, it was a pretty solid read.

For the record, I am employed happily at a conservative, Bible believing, profoundly non-emergent church. In fact, I have only known what that word means for less then a year. I have some excitement and some concerns about the emergent, but judicious use the F-bomb is not one of them.

pjlr,

You make an excellent point, artists can and should be able to construct a sentence, lyric, or picture and express themselves creatively without being offensive. Wait... what exactly is offensive? That's a matter of personal taste, and not so easily defined.

I, as an musician, am genuinely offended by a majority of Contemporary Christian Music. I'm not offended by bad theology, or coarse language. I'm offended by lack of creativity. Yes... I choose that word carefully. You wanna talk lowest common denominator? Go check out the music section at your local Christian bookstore.

I am making statements of taste here. My high school students LOVE Christian music. I do my best to stuff my personal opinions and engage them, because that's the right thing to do. I submit my personal tastes for the good of The Kingdom.

My question is not whether or not saying a cuss word is sinful or not, but whether or not it is beneficial. Romans 14 makes it very clear that we are not to judge our brothers and sisters in regards to disputable matters, but it also makes it clear that we are not to do anything to cause our brothers and sisters to stumble. It's clearly pointed out that the poem caused real Christian's to stumble greatly--it divided a unified congregation for little reason.

What happened to the commands in Colossians 3?

"8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips."

and a little further:

"16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."

The congregation did not -need- a such a poem to grow towards Christ, and the young woman did not -need- to stand before the church and read a poem laced with filthy language. The pastor had an opportunity to explain some very basic concepts to a new believer. Instead he chose to build her self-esteem. I've heard many testimonies and many poems about redemption... they are powerful enough without resorting to curse words for theatrical or artistic effect. The ends do not justify the means here, because the ends included a stumbling block for believers. The older believers did the right thing in being reconciled and not condemning the pastor and the young woman. Hopefully their examples will continue to guide the young in Christ to closer relationships with Christ.

As I am reading this I am in the process of preparing a message from 2 Timothy 4:1-8. I have no desire to stand before the spotless, blameless, sinless, holy Son of God and try to explain why I used the most degrading and enslaving language to express the most beautiful and liberating message.

I will tell you that the "F" word is probably my least favorite in the world but the higher value is the heart of someone sharing their story from their frame of reference. Yes, it would be a much nicer world if we never had to hear words that actually make us flinch because of their connotation. Sadly, many folks who come to Scum, don't live in that world. They don't have years (or even hours) of Biblical knowledge to tell them what's "appropriate in church". It seems to me that they are the very ones Christ gave His life to redeem. Are we now asking people to change their ways BEFORE they come to Christ and have the opportunity to be discipled and mentored by a more mature Christian? I would say, as someone in an older generation, who has been to Scum on numerous occasions that Mike Sares knows his flock. I applaud him for choosing, after asking counsel, to err on the side of unconditional acceptance of someone who doesn't have all the words just right yet rather than taking the easy way out which would have definitely been more lucrative.

Before I came to Christ I knew how the other half lived. I didn't need someone to be "real" the way I was "real". I needed someone to be an example to me in how to be Christ Like. I needed to learn a new language, a heavenly language.

If I didn't need to change the direction I was going I wouldn't have went to a place of change, the presence of Christ. When we softpedal the need for change in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g we do, we can create the most dangerous situation ever, a person who is half saved...
And using the excuse that there is gossip going on also, is real weak. Neither are good. Never use the failings of another to justify our failings...

I find two things disturbing about "the rest of the story:"
First, the author of this post invites the reader to accept applause and emotional response, for a poem which contains the so-called and evidently offensive "F-bomb," as the crowning affirmation of the decision to incorporate such poetry into a Christmas Eve service. Moreover, we have not been given the benefit of reading this moving poem, yet we have all been invited to judge its use. This is foolishness.

I am another who is stunned that we're even having this conversation... it seems that things could be reduced a bit to a simple common denominator: The church exists firstly for God. (Revelation 4:11) The church doesn't exist for people, the church is people. So, perhaps the best questions might be: "Does this minister to the heart of God? Is this the best representation of an offering to a holy and reverent God?"

Everybody wants to build a better church, instead of wanting the church to be better built up.

Theonlos, I agree with you what the question is: was reading that poem beneficial to that community?

Paul makes the point in 1 Corinthians that individual gifts are all well and good, but that building up the Body is their purpose. What happens in corporate worship is judged by how it edifies those gathered, not how it edifies the individual.

But about your conclusion, I couldn't disagree with you more. Mike Sares made it clear that many, many people were blessed because of the reading of that poem.

My point about "erring on the side of the weaker brother" was all about my context, and how it's different from Scum. Like Chad, I am happily employed in a non-emergent church, but see great things from emerging churches. In my church, that poem would do nothing but turn away everyone--from regulars to new visitors.

But at some point, we have to "teach and admonish" the weaker brother--even if it means making them uncomfortable.

I am not a pastor and I am not going to post a whole bunch of scriptures to make myself sound spiritual or holier then though.

I am so glad that you decided to let her read the poem. I think that is so awesome and what it did for the church sounds great. I like a church that can be real. That doesn't try to put on a "show". You put the oweness on Mary Kate and overall she made a good decision. She probably took out the F-bombs that she felt were extra and left the ones that she felt needed to stay to express herself and what she was going through.

People my age are looking for a church that is real not afraid to put it all out there. If I am ever in Denver I would love to visit your church.

I do wish that you would post the poem so that we could read it.

I thought Randal (Nov. 17) put it best. The church should not change with changing fashions. Those who are being drawn by the Father (without which no one comes to faith in Christ) should see that they are being drawn to a change in everything about themselves. If what they find is no different than what is in their present lives, why should they find it attractive? People repent and are born into God's family when they see that that family is totally different from the one they are in now.

Do you think this is the kind of language Jesus used to relate to the common people of his day? Are we are compromising holiness for "relevance"?
Jesus won people into the kingdom through his love and compassion and through the power of the Holy Spirit in signs, wonders and miracles. Are we so desperately trying to be relevant because of our own spiritual impotency?

Is your God so small that he can't put up with a few bad words in order to change lives?

Is your God so dull that he can't understand the context in which words are spoken, and is more concerned with simply not hearing particular sounds in the air than he is by the meaning or purpose of those sounds?

Is your God so sanitized that only the already clean can approach him?

Is your God's understanding of "clean" so shallow that it refers to the outside of the cup rather than the inside?

Or is it just you?

Very early on, after the initial part of the story about the service at Scum was posted, I responded to make basically only one point. I was intrigued that one group of people were commenting that the poem might have been OK in certain church settings but not on Christmas Eve, and I wondered if this might be backwards. I may have missed it, since so many responses have subsequently come in, but I haven't noticed anyone following up on this issue. I did have one e-mail from a recent grad blasting me for saying what I did in my earlier posting, but that's a different question.
So I'll pose a second, unrelated question. I've responded to only three or four blogs in my life; scholars/teachers have a few other commitments in life too :) , but I'm now pondering the whole "medium is the message" question. Does the very FORMAT of inviting people of inevitably tons of conflicting perspectives to respond to an issue this potentially divisive, and then to respond to each other, inherently work against the love and unity of the church that is already found too little in most places? I personally find the responses and exchanges fascinating and instructive, but will those with strong feelings on one side or the other come away from the conversation just having their stereotypes about and dislike for "the other side" strengthened? Have the OutofUr/Christianity Today people ever discussed this question? Would any of them care to respond? Would anyone else? It seems that it is the lot of scholars/teachers to ask questions nobody else is asking!

To respond to Dr. Blomberg, I too have only posted on a couple of blogs or message boards in my life. When I do, I often find that I am guilty of posting with great frequency and little thought. It is quite easy to sit in front of a computer and fire off smug, self-satisfying, and highly inflammatory respsonses, and online message boards lend highly to misinterpretation. I've talked to several people from Scum who didn't respond to this blog for exactly those reasons. I do believe in the inherent goodness of conversation, but prefer exchanges with a real live person, and many times online "discussions" leave me sympathizing with Elvis when he cried for "a little less conversation, a little more action." The word discussion is nice, but most people seem content to post an opinion and not to discuss. All in all, my convictions remain the same, although I am less willing to die for them on this theological battlefield than on others. My stereotypes, well I still have them, but I would like to believe that age and experience are slowly washing them away.

Christians have two problems working against them: Aramaic and English! Is it "paste of fowl grease" or is it "pate de foie gras"? And where did all these kids come from?

I just read the two F-bomb posts, in reverse chronological order. I have a hunch that my advice would have been to ask the poet to clean it up. But I appreciated the concerted effort that Sares went through before making a decision in either direction. I hope that, in spite of the fact that he went against his financial supporters' counsel, they continued to support him; that would be a big statement: "I don't agree with the decision you made, but I trust your judgment and the process you went through in reaching that decision." Too often we who provide financial backing for a ministry use money as leverage to have things done our way. I wonder how many righteous things are not done because a supporter didn't think it should be done. (The prostitute who anointed Jesus with a jar of expensive perfume comes to mind as a biblical example.)