Here we go, folks. Round Four...

First, let me say that I was moved by the poem. I believe I felt what Mary Kate was hoping her audience would feel. I can't say, however, that anybody's reaction, or the context, justifies what was censored from the poem. There are other ways to communicate such feeling and emotion without putting the church on the leading edge of trying to convince everyone that this word (which the vast majority of English-speaking people consider a 'bad' word) has a rightful place in our society and in our worship of a holy God.

Is the F-word really a 'bad' word? In today's society, I believe it is, and I think most people would agree with me. You can argue all day long about etymology and context, but you're not going to convince very many people, including the MPAA and Christianity Today, that it's not a bad word. The contemporary dominant association of the word carries too much baggage for us to justify its usage.

Do the apparent spiritual benefits of using the F-word justify its usage? I don't believe so. Millions have been saved without it. Deep emotion can be expressed without it, even the emotions of a deeply hurt teenage boy. It is certainly possible to be true to the spirit of what you're trying to present without offending the sensibilities of the audience.

As an artistic piece, I give it a 9 (out of 10). Excellent, heart wrenching, and the drama of her delivery was moving. In a coffee house or bar ministry, yes it might be effective. I still wouldn't have gone along with it in our church without a major scrubbing. I guess I can compare it to the shower scene in "Psycho"--watching the blood and water run down the drain was as intense (if not more so) as any slasher movie, yet you can watch the entire scene uncensored without losing an ounce of effect. We have people at our church who went through hard times. One watched her father kill her mother, another had a close relative executed by the state. They have given their testimonies without resorting to this. Even us white washed churches struggle getting "respectable" people to understand that they aren't too vile for the Lord nor His church. May God richly bless Mary Kate, her Pastor, and this church as they continue to serve Him. And I would like to thank them for risking such exposure in a public forum when they could have "changed the names to protect the innocent".

i love the comment about the muscles in your arms being in opposite tension to make your arm work...good point! thanks

I have read everything leading to this point but have refrained from "partaking" until I had the opportunity to research SCUM and to hear or read the poem for myself.

There is no doubt in my mind that even the PG version of the poem would not "fly" in most churches today--let's face it--most simply are not ready for the visceral energy that is at the core of the poem and the poet regardless of the words.

I spent 3 years, when I was not in the ministry, working as a counselor and case worker in a juvenile facility for boys age 8-18. I can tell you that the F word is as common a part of their vocabulary as the word "is" in ours (but that is no excuse). And yes, there is usually much pain and suffering in their lives that brings them to this point (even now--though I am once again a full-time vocational pastor I have opportunity to visit our local juvenile center)some things never change.

I had been a youth minister for nearly 10 years when I went to work in the facility. In the two years after I left the ministry I worked a construction job--so I feel I'm not an "ivory tower" preacher out of touch with the REAL world--like everyone else there has been pain, suffering, doubt, etc...it IS part of the spiritual struggle that constantly ravages our lives.

Someone responded that "context" is everything. To some degree--I agree. It appears to me that SCUM is not your average congregation down the street. I applaud their efforts and the work they are doing for the Kingdom.

The poem is, in many ways, outstanding--there is "light at the end of the tunnel" and the struggle is from the gut, emotionally raw, "wear-your-heart -on-your-sleeve-and-hope-no-one-hacks-it-to-bits" authentic. But I am not certain that the same effect could not have been reached in another way.

We all are, in effect, psychoanalyzing a corpse. What's done is done. All we can do is prayerfully consider the opportunities presented by God and hope that by God's mercy He somehow turns this attempts by earthen vessels into a pleasing offering used by and for Him for His glory alone. I doubt that I could make the decisions that they have made but it seems obvious, in retrospect, for better or worse, this preacher, poet, and poem have had a lasting impact--to God be the glory!

Thanks for posting the poem! Regardless of the disagreement over the f-bomb and it's usage, I think that all the people who accused Mary Kate of having a poor command of the English language, a small vocabulary, and an inability to use "non-foul" words to evoke powerful emotion owe her a big apology. The poem is great, and a close listen will reveal that she was in fact chiding the young teenage poet to expand his own vocabulary a bit. How ironic!!!

I was resisting continuing in this discussion...but couldn't help but say thanks for sharing the poem, I was moved as well.

I really appreciate your comments and the picture you painted for us of Scum, Mike; I'll share (again) --context is important. And I can see how this poem might speak to your folks, just as the name "Scum" does.

God wants to reach everyone, and there are some wild ways He goes about doing that, so God Bless you guys at Scum for loving the "unlovely", normal people out there.

Brent really apprciate your view on this all, hope you realize that,"...as iron sharpens iron."

Mike LOVED your analogy of our arm muscles, we too often forget that we need both to get a job done.

Peace

My comments have two parts, one on the use of the f-word itself, and the other on its use at a congretational meeting where it would offend some of those present.

First, I expand on my other posts in the first thread. It is important to observe that it is not just context that is relevant, it is the dialect of the speakers and audience. It has been said, and not without warrant, that a "language" is just a dialect with an army. That is, it's a social construction. A cuss word has no offensiveness apart from the social construction of the dialect by its speakers; G does not maintain an eternal list of cuss words such that a word, when spoken even for the very first time, would be a cuss because it was deemed so from the beginning of creation. Consequently, among the speakers at Scum the f-word would, in many contexts, not be offensive at all. I have been part of English dialects (e.g., university life (note: even the concept of "dialect" or "sub-dialect" or "slang", etc. are all social constructions, so don't get hung up on it; the key point is the social construction between the speaker and hearer)) where "F" was ubiquitous and not always offensive. In addition to the linguistic textbooks at a university, I refer all to the excellent article "Toward An Evangelical Theology Of Cussing" at http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3055

Building upon the above, one can observe that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to express the f-word in other language and achieve the same level or range of emotion, or impact. If it were possible the f-word would have died out as obsolete long ago; but it thrives. Moreover, as anyone who uses it as a regular part of his/her vocabulary can attest, the f-word can range from inoffensive to very offensive depending on the situation in which it is used, the tone of voice, and the other words with which it is coupled. It can be used to express grief, anger, anguish, depth of sorrow/forgiveness, exclamation, intensity, and, of course, offensiveness. It is uniquely and usefully expressive.

We are the church, not a building. All of creation is G's, not just the building. G is everywhere. If it is possible that there are times and places where it is not a sin to use the f-word, then it is possible that there are times within a church building that it can be used. And it is not deniable that there are such times and places because it is a simple fact that between certain speakers and there hearers the f-word will not have the level of offensiveness that would lower it to the level of filthy language (if that indeed is what the Bible refers to by the term "filthy", which I doubt, but for sake of argument I will assume it does),

However.

My second point relates to the fact that the f-word was used at a Christmas Eve service at which there were present people who would be, and were, offended at the use of the f-word. Moreover, it was known that there would be such people (thus the warning).

There is an applicable comparison between what happened that night and Paul's admonitions to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians. In chapter 11 Paul refers to G disciplining church members by making them sick or killing them ("sleep"; v. 30). Why? because some of the Corinthian Christians refused to wait to eat the Lord’s Supper until all of the Corinthians had time to arrive. Those who arrived early were eating their own food to excess and causing others to go without (see vv. 20 - 22). Paul says that they were "despising the church of G". Paul's solution is in v. 33: wait for one another so that they can eat together. What will happen if they don't heed Paul's advice? "judgment".

It's hard to believe that not waiting for fellow congregants could be so important, especially in a church that was rife with incest, immorality, law suits, etc.--none of which were subject to as severe a judgment (even the incestuous person was not dead yet, but only would be if he did not repent).

I realize that meals in the Bible have particular significance, and that the Lord's supper has special and unique significance (significant enough to lead to severe judgment if done wrongly, unlike other aspects of a worship service). However, one of the key issues that Paul was driving at was unity and the corporate wholeness of the body. Failing to wait for other believers in the church and not sharing the Lord’s Supper was (is) a blatant disregard for this corporate dimension of Christ’s atoning work on Calvary.

In Corinth, the affluent Christians were satiating themselves with their own food and wine before the poor arrived, and not saving anything to share with the “have nots�. Consequently the poor were excluded from participation in worship. Likewise at Scum, those who had come to celebrate in unity and fellowship one of the highest points in the liturgical calendar were excluded; indeed, asked to leave. What does that do to someones experience of fellowship? experience of worship? It completely breaks the flow of worship. And I'm not just blowing smoke--in the story as told some people left in tears.

There can be times and places in church for f-word poems. Have poetry or art nights where it is known that people can be very expressive and honest, have special services, have more than one Christmas service, etc. Especially, do the warnings well in advance so that those who would be offended don't show up at the door expecting something else and then have to leave part way through. Holding a service at which everyone is expected to come, at which it is expected that people will come who will be offended, and then having the first warning to be in the middle of the night of (or even at the beginning), and then to expect people to leave if offended, is so anti-unity, anti-fellowship, anti-body. No matter how meaningful to others, it cannot justify alienating and causing disunity at a celebration of C's birth. Be meaningful and real and use the f-word, but just do it in a more mature Christ honouring manner that respects the wholeness of the body of Christ.

As to context, the only true Christian context is "in Christ" where "Christ is all, and in all," where everything we do in word or deed is to be done in the Name of the Lord Jesus. We are called to dwell on that which is "honorable...pure...lovely...of good repute...excellence...things worthy of praise." It does not require much Christian maturity to discern that using obscenities in church is not worshipping the Lord in the "beauty of holiness."
There is no desire to condemn here, only to honor God by obeying His Word and to make a plea for the church to walk worthy of its calling to faithfully represent Jesus Christ in this world. Mistakes are made (I certainly make my share). At least one mistake has been made on the occasion under discussion. Only God knows what harm has been done, because He alone sees what has transpired in the hearts of all involved, including the hearts of all those who have been reading about and participating in this divisive exercise. We all need to purge ourselves of this off-color business and press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

It seems all the comments are in favor, or bend towards admiration of the poem and the courage of the church and poetess to present it. I have not read or heard the poem. I won’t.

To comment, first, context is irrelevant. Vulgar is vulgar, no matter where or when.

Vulgar. This was argued in a previous post to be an archaic word used by the aristocracy of England to enforce class distinctions. Not useful today. Baloney. Vulgar is in common use, and is defined in dictionary.com as:

Crudely indecent.
a.Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
b.Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish.
c.Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.

There is NO spiritual value in being crude and indecent. If you have a problem with the church today, and Christians in general because they are unloving, insensitive, asleep, or blind to the problems of the homeless, then go worship at the Peace Corps or local food bank.

Or preach the Word to the Church, “Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead�! The shock value of vulgarity crushes the spiritual value of preaching the Word.

I would ask if the people promoting vulgarity in a church setting really understand the difference between flesh and spirit? Or if they believe there is something called words of life? It gets down to this, Christians must make a difference in this world, but what difference will we make if we look just like the world. The difference should be the Life of Christ in us.

There are many people I know to whom the F word is a part of everyday speech. These are people who tolerate my faith, but remain untouched by it. When you've been wounded by the self-righteousness of some of us Christians, you're not likely to trust any Christian unless you know fully that they admit to being human. What comes to mind is Paul saying that he is all things to all people so that he might win some to Christ. "You catch 'em, I'll clean 'em", as my pastor says. Our job is to bring people to Jesus. He does the rest.

This obviously has hit a spot with folks, both pro and con...here's what's occured to me...why are we more worried/concerned/bothered about the word(s) used, rather than hearing about the tremendous need and work to be done at and around Scum? Should we be more focused on this use of word or on the souls that are condemed and need the love and redemption of God to restore them?

Thank you Eric! Our two biggest ongoing needs are for (1) older, godly people who understand and believe in our mission and are willing to disciple people in the church and (2) finances. God is faithful and has been lavishing His goodness on us in these areas lately, but the need is always there.

A funny thing hit me yesterday about this whole discussion. It reminds me of the movie "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure." What made the movie so funny was watching Bill, Ted, Socrates, Ghengis Khan, Abe Lincoln, etc step into cultures that were different from theirs and try to act as they normally would. There was difficulty bridging the culture gap. I can't emphasize enough that while the f-word is not a regular occurence at Scum, there does exist a unique culture. Just like your church. Just like every church, indeed every organization, has a unique culture. People (like me) have gone to business school and taken classes on organizational culture. One company may encourage casual dress around the office - at another it is anathema to wear anything but a three piece suit. Both look down their noses at each other. "How stuffy!" cries the former. "What a bunch of lazy slobs!" exclaims the latter. One church prefers hymns, another more contemporary songs. "How abhorrent! What poor theology!" says the hymn church in disdain. "How boring!" responds the other church. Who is right? It just depends on the culture. And for some reason, there are always a few curmudgeons around any culture, kicking up dust and raising a ruckus every now and then, for as the old saying goes, "You can't please all of the people all of the time." But for some reason they stay, and God uses them to keep us honest.

Fascinating discussion.

Many people have posted about the offensiveness of the F-word. Well, yeah. That's the point.

Mary Kate uses the word in the mouth of a kid who is supposed to offend the audience. The problem is that some people seem to be offended into some kind of paralysis, left unable to deal with the redemption and glory that follows.

I suppose we could argue she endorses the word when she spits it back to the kid. But I see that as a way of calling his bluff. As a teacher she is telling him, I'm not afraid of your language and I'm not afraid of you. In a sense, she shows the boy she can accept him and his flaws when she shows a willingness to accept his language without casting judgment.

The F-word in the poem is evidence of the darkness in the boy's life. You could call it a metaphor or an example of metonymy, even. The boy uses the language as a way of masking his identity. He hides behind the darkness of his words and almost wants people to believe that he is nothing more than that darkness. Later in the poem, he is more honest with himself and his audience.

And we have to remember the larger context of the poem itself. The poem is about redemption. What better way to show the power of redemption than to hint at the sin and darkness from which we have been redeemed? This is where context becomes so important. Some church audiences need subtlety. For others, subtlety rings dishonest. Neither church is morally superior in my opinion. We are merely seeing their taste in art. Consider the nudes in the Sistine Chapel. How many people would be distracted by so many nipples and butts hanging in their worship hall? Does their taste for subtlety make Michelangelo's masterpiece immoral or at least in appropriate for a church building. No.

The real issue for me, though, is about language. How much do we trust in the power of our own language? Do my words have the power to curse--or does my heart? Do my words have the power to bless--or does my Lord?

I haven't listened to the poem but I would like to chime in on the "controversy". I felt led by God to plant a church much like "Scum" in our area of Nor Cal. Our vision was to provide a church that was short on tradition and long on grace. It was a place where those who had a problem with "normal" church life and rules could go and hear the Word in a grace-filled format. They would be accepted unconditionally with respect and dignity, not in judgement. I went so far as to tell my leadership team that if someone came in drinking a beer not to take it from them. And to let them enter since they would experience the love of Jesus so strong they would walk out knowing they were in God's presence and not want the beer anymore. I held the same philosophy if they came under the influence of pot. I wouldn't let them in smoking it though.

I believe there must be churches that will minister to the needs of our generation, as David ministered to his, in the context of total grace and acceptance since we are dealing with a generation that has not been raised in the church and has no idea how to "conduct" themselves in a church setting. Honestly, many churches teach you to be a hypocrite by expecting you to always say the right thing and wear the right thing and to never be transparent. Many aren't extended much grace as baby Christians as they grow through the mistakes that come with the spiritual formation process.

Lets be real look where Jesus ministered. He was in brothels and constantly in the "enemies camp" spreading His gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation. Until the Jesus last day who spoke highly of Jesus? The sinners, and who spoke evil of Jesus? The religious because He was blowing away their "club" that held people captive by their sins.

We must be sensitive to our culture without letting it tarnish us. The message can never be compromised but the delivery must be catered to the audience receiving it. I'm not suggesting using expletives regularly or even at all. Don't forget we are all sinners saved by grace and with that what one might feel is in context others outside the circle might not. God is using mainstream churches, as well as churches like "Scum" to search the highways and byways for those who are kids of the Most High and don't yet know it.

For God's Glory,
Gary

An illustration, from Christianity Today (which used the vulgar word), of how the same English word can be vulgar and obscene to one speaker and hearer, and not to another. First the illustration from an interview with the band Petra (posted at the website today):

CT: Speaking of the current generation, what advice do you have to the new crop of rockers who are picking up where you left off?

Schlitt: We've had a chance to play with a lot of new bands. They've got great attitudes, good Christian walks and that desire to go forward. When I meet bands like that, I say "Guys, you've been chosen to be the leaders of your generation. Now you have two directions you could go—you can either have the guts to go for it and be that leading example of Christ, or you could wimp out and go the easy way and get gobbled up in the meantime. But God's given you a chance to go forward and be a leader in the name of Jesus Christ. Go for it, do it, be excited and don't be afraid."

I want to encourage them because they don't get encouraged through the world. The world's constantly saying "compromise," but my gosh, we should be the leaders and the world should be following us! Why do you want to follow your way right into the pit?

OK, now my comment. See the word "g-sh" in the last paragraph? I was raised to believe that that word was an obscene word because saying "my g-sh" was the same as saying "my G-d", which is, of course, taking G's name in vain. Even today I remain of that view, and for me saying or hearing the phrase "my g-sh" is more offensive (indeed a sin to say it) than hearing or saying the eff word. Indeed, it's offensiveness is so deeply ingrained in me that I cannot ever remember saying it, though I assume that as a child my dad must have put soap in my mouth over it.

To repeat: the f-word is not inherently and invariably vulgar. G-d did not say at creation, "Behold, the f-word shall be vulgar and when some human chances to voice that series of sounds, that human will have uttered a vulgarity".

A word's meaning results from an understanding between a speaker and a hearer: it is socially constructed. For many at Scum, as among the people I hang with, the f-word can have the same meaning and impact as "very", as in "I feel effin sick". Or it can be uttered in complete anquish, "oh f*, oh f*, oh f*", expressing what cannot be put into other words (but still not intended to be obscene, just emphatic). In a congregation full of people like that, the f-word is not vulgar (unless used in combination with certain other words).

But, at an event or service where the church (body of people present) includes those who would be offended, it would be a vulgarity for those and thus dis-unifying to ask them to leave before uttering it. Shall the mouth cut off the foot and say, "I have no need to worship with you at this time"?

Ha! The nudes in the Sistine Chapel comment reminds me of the cover of Franky Schaeffer's book "Addicted to Mediocrity." Two painters are whitewashing this famous work of art. This book (or anything in his fictional series about Calvin Dort Becker) probably can't be found in Christian bookstores. Alas. They are hilariously and sadly true to life.

Marcus raised a good, but subtle point. One worth pursuing in this thread. My emails have been largely directed to those who write, essentially, "f* is an impermissible vulgarity always, everywhere and between everyone". Those people are factually wrong. Hence, I have tried to show that there are some times when f* is not an impermissible obscenity; indeed, not an obscenity at all. Once we get past that point we can have more fruitful discussions.

If f* is not inherently and invariably vulgar, when can we use it? Only when it is not vulgar at all (i.e., between those people for whom it is not an obscene word, at least not all the time). Should we only tolerate it without comment when used by those not fully sanctified? Or can we use it when it is known and experienced as a vulgar (from a little up to very)? That is, can we use it for creative and emotional and honest expression? Knowing that such a use is only effective because it is at least a little vulgar? At what point does the use of f* become filthly language (if ever)? This involves unpacking the Bible verses dealing with "filthy language".

There are at least three issues raised by the above (i.e., potential use of f*) that require mature leadership. One is the everyday use by members of a local body. This issue would be resolved in one way by the body at Scum, and another way by a body somewhere else. Another, related, issue is the use of f* in poem, song, reading, or preaching. Again, the identity of the speaker and hearer is important, as is whether we are permitted by G to use strong language (i.e., stronger than "wow" or "oh").

The third issue, relates to worship unity. Given that some hearers will react very strongly to certain sounds (i.e., words)--as is evidenced by some of the posts to these threads and by some of the people at the Scum service--how do we handle that? Do we plunge on ahead? As was done at that service at Scum. Do we give more extensive fore-warnings? But surely the issue of unity has to be addressed by the leadership. On the one hand, if it is clearly announced that potentially offensive language will be used on such and such a date, then all those who would be offended can stay home, and those who would be blessed (and there were many of those at Scum) can attend.

It is with respect to this last issue that I believe the leadership at Scum failed. And this issue has not yet been pursued here. Namely, if we know for certain that some worshippers will be offended, what do we do? This is an extremely serious issue as evidenced by Paul's discussion of that subject in his letters to the body of Christ in Corinth. Paul in particular addressed the most serious of gatherings, the supper in remembrance of what Christ did, but his principle of unity undergirds that discussion and would also inform other worship services.

These threads have been very interesting and stimulating, and I would like to see them pick up on some of the more thoughtful points raised. That is, leave the "no, never" v. "yes, sometimes" dichotomy behind. Let's pursue the "yes" further. How do we reach people with different dialects or uses of English? In what ways is it different from or similar to missions to Ukrainian speakers? On issue no. 2, how do we use strong and expressive language? And finally (though I'm not trying to limit discussion to these three issues), how do we deal with the fact that some words can affect members of the body very differently? How can we provide appropriate contexts for the use of certain words (words that are real and meaningful to some people, but not to others), and avoid contexts that would wrongly divide and separate the body? I don't think that every service has to cater to everyone and be brought down to the lowest common denominator.

regards,

For a perspective from the side against swearing, see the newly posted article "Taming the Tongue" at http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001172.cfm

His quoted verses have nothing to do with crass or vulgar language or swearing (not the oath kind), but at least his article is thought through.

I quite enjoyed Gary's post, and he made good points. However, his post, and Mike Sare's appear to be at odd's with the above cited article. Is allowing what some consider to be very vulgar language a mission to people who speak a bit differently or is it giving in--unacceptably so--to a direction in the language that could take others with it?

I would cosider the F-bomb filthy language which is discouraged in scripture (Col. 3:8). We shouldn't want to be more like the society that we are ministering to but we should want to be more like Jesus. I would rather encourage others to speak words that build up. Why ride the line of the questionable and possibly offensisve for offensive sake? Speak a language that builds up and not tears down.

No doubt there is a time and place for Kate's poem. Regardless of the content.
I am just wondering if they would talk/act in that matter if Jesus was there standing in front of them, since, afterall, it's God's house.

Nice poem.

After having said that, what I find more offensive than the use of the f-bomb is that it appears that everyone believes there is more power in this poem than in God's word. And even more offensive than that, people mumble God's word rather than reading it with the same kind of conviction that the author of the poem did...

St. Paul speaks of the Gospel being "the power unto salvation to those who believe". God's Holy Spirit calls people to his redemption through that word, the divine speach act that is Christ himself.

What's offensive here is we seem to trust more the words of men and woman more than God's own gift of his word and his sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist. God's word is the power of salvation. It's foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those of us being saved, it's the power of God.

I would cry if I heard that the Psalm reading left everyone bored. The author's poem is nice, but it doesn't hold a candle to any of the Psalms.

Should we only sing Psalms in church because hymns and songs are non-scriptural and merely words of men (some denominations do Psalm singing almost exclusively, are they right?).

Should we eliminate sermons, and only have scripture readings, because sermons are words of men rather than of G?

Should we eliminate all arts? and be plain (some protestant groups are almost like this, and extreme in their plainness). Are arts from satan rather than G?

As for the repeated mentione of Colossians 3:8. Clearly, the Bible forbids something that is in the original Greek "aischrologia", which is frequently translated “obscene speech.� Colossians 3:8 says, “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech [aischrologia] from your mouth� (NASB). The NIV translates the word as “filthy language.� The KJV has “filthy communication.� The ASV reads, “shameful speaking.� Luther, who is known for his affection for cussing, translates the word “schandbare Worte.�

The question is What does Colossians 3:8 specifically forbid when it tells us to put away aischrologia? The word itself is made up of two Greek words: "aischros" meaning “disgraceful, shameful, dishonest,� and "logia", meaning “oracles.� In every use in the NT, logia refers to “oracles,� or the revealed message from God. It is not the word logos, which can refer to actual words themselves (Matt 12:36), a message (Matt 13:19), or speech in general (Matt 5:37). So, it appears that Paul is actually forbidding false prophesying.

Finally, an unrecognized undercurrent here is that different social groups speak differently. In linguistic terms they would have their own dialect or subdialect of English. The main dialect, school English, which is heard in banks, on the major media, etc., has a dictionary and great prestige. Most North Americans can speak this, but they also speak differently in different social settings and there are also regional dialects. Scum serves a social grouping in which the f-bomb is not necessarily vulgar, and even when used as a vulgarity, can be acceptable depending on its context, purpose, adjoining words, amount of force, etc. Many who have written in come from very different social backgrounds. These writers are effectively saying, "my words are better than yours; your words are vulgarities to me. And if your words are obscene vulgarities to me, they are always vulgarities, even for you, and you can't use them, not even use them differently. You can only use words my way."

It's not necessarily a class based thing, since not all artists are starving artists. Nor is it only middle class suburban evangelicals who think f* is a vulgariy. There are various possible groups who either use f* as an acceptable part of their vocabularly, or who think it is unacceptably obscene.

It's easy to see and accept differences when the "other" is a foreigner of a foreign tongue. It's not so easy when the other is closer to home.

What's more offensive to me is that some people (and I'm not referring to any particular post) look down on others because they are different and speak differently and find different things (and different words) meaningful.

If someone from Scum went to another church, where f* was unacceptably obscene, that person would have to adjust. If someone from that other church went visiting to Scum, they would have to accept that other words might be used--or avoid it by not going.

Regarding the appropriateness of the F-bomb at Christmas Eve…
I’m an ordained minister. The f-word would never, ever work in my church.
But – what if I’m talking with someone who doesn’t know the f-word is in-appropriate. What if – in their excitement about learning that God loves them as they are – they reply (because they don’t know how else to reply), “In-f***ing incredible!�
Is Jesus going to be ticked? Not in my book. Would people in the church I serve? Absolutely – but that’s their problem, not mine.
Context of ministry IS everything. Mary Kate’s poem used the f-word in an honest but earthy and offensive way. Personally? I’ll take honesty and earthiness and offensiveness anytime over ‘nice Christianity.’ Nice is nice – but it isn’t real. It’s way too easy to hide behind. Nice doesn’t ever replace passion.

In the context of Scum of the Earth Church what else would you expect? I think we are more concerned about our language use than God is. The F-bomb is just a word. Yes it has meaning, but in a certain context. Do you know what the "left hand" was used for in the Middleastern culture of Jesus' day? To know that gives a completely different contextual meaning to his words "don't let the right hand know what the left is doing." I come from a culture where certain hand gestures are considered obsene. If I did them in that context, look out! But if I do them in my current church setting, even without thinking, no one cares. They are meaningless to them.

We are all F-bombs to a holy God, truth be told. But God cares more that we talk to Him, than he does the words we use to talk to him. And in his fantastic mercy, He knows how to answer us using the right words -- I Love You.

Thank you Mary Kate for being with those boys and listening to them and caring enough to remember what they said.

Thank you Pastor Mike for being a loving pastor to the people who come to do church at Scum of the Earth. I would be honored to worship with you some day there.

Thanks for the poem, and to Mary Kate and Pastor Mike and Bono, who also uses the f-word, for helping me know that I am not alone in understanding the the world is a f-ed up place and utterly broken by sin.

Thanks to the rest. I don't get why you don't get it. But it's been a marvelous adventure in missing the point. Keeping those muscles in tension in the body of Christ helps us move the forearm. Thanks to Pastor Mike for that wonderful metaphor. I think I will use it.

There does seem to be some confusion here, doesn't there?

I just read the other threads concerning this event, this ministry and the like. I'd like to point out something that I think has been missed that's clearly stated in this poem.

The boy "poet" writes: I am not a bad person. This is a common thing said these days, and very common in the church at large. But over and above this statement, Christianity, through God's word, says that people ARE bad. Original sin stains humanity to the point that we can't even respond to God in that state. When someone states "I am not a bad person", they are first making a statement of their rights in defending who they are, and secondly stating that, with the right motivation, the right environment, the right education, the right lineage, the right whatever... they can somehow reach God.

This is called Pelagianism. The belief that we are naturally good and all we need is a leg up, a bit of help from the Holy Spirit and we can be better people. This is NOT what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches that "there is none righteous, no, not one".

The poem goes on to talk about how "Jesus promised a dying man eternal life". But this man on the cross next to Jesus, just before that promise was made, said "Don’t you fear God since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.�

This man wasn't saying, "hey, Jesus, I'm not a bad person. I'm just a product of my environment/schooling/parents/culture. I deserve better!"

You know what I say? F--- that! F--- my environment! F--- Schooling! F--- how my parents brought me up! F--- the culture! I did these things! I sinned against the Sovereign God of the universe! I sinned against my neighbor! I caused my brothers to stumble! I ruined thier faith! I REJECTED GOD'S LOVE! And the only hope I have is in the shed blood of my Savior, Jesus Christ. With the bones of the whole of Israel in Ezekiel 37, I agree and confess "Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off."

But those words that God spoke... "Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive; and you will know that I am the LORD." These words he fulfills in the work of his Son, Jesus Christ.

A couple of posters here have talked about "being real" with God. God wants us to be so "real" that we admit that we are lost, have sinned against him and our neighbor. God is bigger than your environment. He is bigger than your education. He is bigger than your upbringing. He is bigger than the culture. And He will raise you up in the last day.

I'm saddened we're more worried about the f-bomb than celebrating this lost sheep being found.

Like many of you I have mixed feelings about this issue. I agree with those who have expressed dismay over the many un-Christlike responses that have been leveled at fellow brothers and sisters.

However, I wonder what fellow followers of Jesus in India, in African countries or in Asia would make of this discussion? Why do we, as American Christians, focus on these issues? What do our passions, priorities, values and the use of our resources communicate about our faith? Most of us who are engaged in this discussion do not have to worry about finding enough food for our family for just one more day, or fear for our lives or those of our loved ones because we identify with Christ. I assume none of us have spent time in an American prison or police station because of our faith. None of us in our country have endured the hardships, sufferings or persecutions that is routine for many believers around the world.

Somehow, when I consider these things, it makes this discussion seem not that important.

May we each be formed more and more into the likeness of Him, so that we indeed can be His presence to those around us.

When the boy says "I am not a bad person", I think it is quite obvious that he is not issuing a theological manifesto. He is a juvenile delinquent and has probably been told too many times that he is worthless and bad and useless and so on. It is a statement of hope, of the value of a soul, not a treatise on indwelling sin.

Oh man...I don't normally read full blogs, but this one probably has been the best ever! I especially took notice of it because I once taught a lesson at the Church where I pastor entitled, "Forgiveness: The "F-word" of the Church." I got waaay more criticism than applause for it, and that from a VERY progressive body. I can relate, although just a little, to how Mike felt.

Nonetheless, the f-word in this blog has become irrelevant (so has nekkidness, by the way).

What seems to have been lost, until Pastor Mike's great article and illustration at the top, has been the fact that we were ASKED to respond in the very first blog entry:

"What was he to do? What would you do? Post your comments and come back soon for part two."

In other words...debate is invited. There were, at times, very harsh responses to otherwise authentic and genuine (I think the favorite terms are "real and raw") posts of heart felt, soul searched opinions. Why is it that only the "Scum's" members are real and raw and everyone else with an opinion is institutionalized in white-washed tombs with budgets and buildings? Why are all with a paved parking lot lumped together into uncaring, sterilized, non-ministries? The notion of the language, contextual or not, evokes strong feelings. People wrestled with their definitions of what is worship, what is glorifying, what is good and right. That's what was invited. Then it turned into a 'church-bash.'

I can tell you what's far more obscene than the F-word, no matter what context, and that is calling the Bride fat, ugly, and stupid. So I'm not comfortable launching an f-bomb and you are. So I want to err on the side of caution and you want to be challenging with a point. So I want to sit quietly and you want to jump up and raise hands. I want to go out to my car and cry, and you want to slam-dance into the altar and chew on the carpet. BOTH are real and raw. Both are honest responses of a heart to worship in a way that doesn't violate the conscience (remember how real and raw Luther was?). We were INVITED to respond to the incident in this blog. Don't get all f'ed up because people did.

When the boy says "I am not a bad person", I think it is quite obvious that he is not issuing a theological manifesto. He is a juvenile delinquent and has probably been told too many times that he is worthless and bad and useless and so on. It is a statement of hope, of the value of a soul, not a treatise on indwelling sin.

But anyone who's confession is "I'm not a bad person" is not in agreement with God. It doesn't matter if someone (or many people) TOLD this boy he's bad and worthless. What matters is, as a member of the human race, he is like all of us: Unrighteous and lawbreakers destined for hell. That's God's opinion.

Now, let me ask anyone who want's to respond. What's the solution for fallen humanity? Who's going to tell this person the good news of Jesus Christ and his work on our behalf? How He lived a perfect life, fulfilled the law, took the curse of sin upon his head as a crown and was nailed to a cross, bled and died as an atonement for our sin. Who will teach them about how we recieve Christ's righteousness, given to us and recieved through faith? Who will teach them about baptism? Who will teach them about the Lord's supper? Who will teach them how they recieve the benefits of Christ through the sacraments?

Are we really doing what we're supposed to do? Are we doing what Jesus commanded be done? Making disciples?

It sounds like Jesus is doing a cool thing at your church. Thanks for the description.

Sounds like you guys are tapping into a culture that the church in the U.S. has not traditionally tapped into. Very exciting!

In regards to question at hand, it was funny to me to listen to the PG version. The word is still there... its just bleeped out.

For those people freaking out about this: Is it the sounds of that particular word that are evil? Or what? Cause to me its the same to say it or bleep it.

Seems like alot of the hoopla (negative comments) are coming from people who cannot identify with you guys culturally.

Steve, I resonate with your comments. I think the difficulty comes when we come to situations where we can simply say: "I'll respond this way, you respond this way, and we'll celebrate our diversity."

What happens when, as it did in this case, you will offend or turn away somebody no matter what choice you make? To use a mundane example, as the music director at my church, parishioners often tell me which songs they wish I would do more often, or songs they wish I'd stop doing. On several occasions, I've had one person ask to do a song more often and another say that we've done that same song too much.

I don't have answers, and I don't think there's one answer for every situation. But I agree with you that the heart of the matter is how we come together as Christ's body: One, with many members.

1 Peter 4:11
If anyone speaks, let him speak as one speaking the very words of God.

Bernie, if you're going to post, at least (a) read the other posts, (b) be thoughtful, and (c) move the discussion forward. Besides ripping only a tiny portion of the passage out, and ripping it out of context, the sentence as quoted without context is thus meaningless because it can mean anything (i.e., mean the use of f* is not OK because it is no a word G would use, or that it is OK because it is a word G would use) depending on the hidden assumptions of the speaker (i.e., assumption concerning what an acceptable word of G would be) and so be used by any side. Even assuming the verse is applicable to what Mike and others at Scum did (which I don't), I for one, would feel completely comfortable with the belief that I could, in the appropriate circumstances with the appropriate hearer(s), use the word f* as one speaking the very words of G. However, note that I do not make the assumption that the verse is applicable.

regards,
J.

This man is our pastor as well, though we do not attend Scum since we live in Washington DC. We are part of a ministry that reaches out to the goth community here in DC, and Mike has been invaluable to us in helping to make this possible.

I (Rick) have great respect for his ability to make this decision, it's not one I'd want to be responsible for. I agree with the conclusions he came to for several reasons:

- "Swearing" is what can be considered a gray area in the Bible. The Bible never says "Thou shalt not say 'f___'." Certainly vulgar and idle words are somthing God frowns upon, but the exact lines are drawn personally through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Some people can't say "gosh" because it's too similar to "God" in vain. Other's have yet to be convicted of anything but the foulest of foul (words which I don't feel comfortable alluding to here even on a first letter basis). Bottom line: Mike was first and foremost concerned about pushing this girl away from God at a crucial moment in her walk. Certainly "black & white" sin is no way to lead someone to Christ, but is a gray area worth pushing them away for?

- The emphasis on "Not in church!" seems inappropriate to me. God lives everywhere and ideally our entire lives are one big act of worship (Rom 12:1, 1Cor 10:31) not just on Sundays in church. Is it wrong or isn't it?

- In your church setting such a poem will most likely not cause people to say "Wow! If God is that real, maybe I can be real with Him too!" However, in Mike's church apparently it will. Again, would we risk loosing the opportunity to show people that God is not intimidated or repulsed by their ugliness over a gray area?

The way I see it is that nothing is more important than this: Jesus said "Go" and make disciples. Sometimes going gets hairy and even dangerous, but we should understand that going sometimes involves doing things that not everyone is going to understand because we all have different backgrounds. If "F" is a word that holds no meaning but utter trash and filth to you, well then clearly that's not how one should try to reach you for Christ. But for someone whom it expresses deep and indescribable human angst and suffering (which for most of the crowd we deal with it does) it absolutely has more place as a means of communication than million dollar words that less educated people wouldn't understand anyway. Unless you can establish 100% Biblical errancy, I see no reason to say it's wrong simply because it wouldn't have worked for you.

Mike, that decision took faith. Whether it was the right one or the wrong one, it was done in faith and that's all the Bible TRULY requires of our decisions, because any decision made not in faith is the real sin. God bless you, man.

Love,
Rick

Well, I've refrained from posting thus far in the discussion, but perhaps it's late enough, perhaps I'm far enough from Scum now, perhaps I just read a couple of comments I thought hadn't been addressed yet. I attended Scum for 4 years and was on staff there last year -- it's a ministry near and dear to my heart. But I was, like many of you, raised in the 'traditional,' conservative church, to which I am very gratefu for instilling a love and knowledge of God in me from my youngest days. My journey from Baptist to Scum was God's work, not rebellion. (btw, I don't tend to swear, and I tend to think circumlocutions like "gosh" or "darn," etc, are pointless -- if the intent to swear is there, the meaning is there!)

Enough for credentials. There were two points in particular I wanted to address. First, 'mattamanu' commented along the lines that the boy's cry "I am not a bad person" was a very incorrect statement and ought to be corrected. For one, I found it very interesting in the poem that the controversial f* word wasn't a part of this boy's final status statement. The f* came as a defense, and when all defense was stripped away this boy cried to be heard, affirmed, and loved. I think Jesus' response to sinners, repeatedly, was to hear all their incorrect theology and love them anyway. The woman at the well argued with Jesus and challenged him on various points of theology, and in the end went away calling everyone she knew to meet the Messiah. Jesus held the same amount of judgment on the ones who brought her to him as he did the woman caught in adultery. The boy's final 'poem' was a plea that he didn't have to be an f-bomb dropping delinquent, and in that plea -- in that brief vision that there is Someone who longs to help us, redeem us, purify us -- we see God. And that, to my hearing, was what Kate's poem was about.

We are fallen. We are the scum, literally, of the earth. And yet we are God's most prized creation, for which he would decend into the dung of our existence in order to redeem us. At Scum, we rarely need to convince people that they are fallen and broken. We often need to convince them that God still wants them and can redeem them. We try to help people stand up in God's grace and say, I do not have to be a bad person - I am not that anymore.

My other thought was in response to j. Inglis, who asked the "yes's" to push a little farther in thinking through the offense to people. And my initial reply is this: the people to whom Scum seeks to minister were not offended. It was those who have another home, another place they could worship, but are also interested in what we do, who were, so far as I know. But any time anyone attends Scum they risk all sorts of offenses in all sorts of ways. If a prostitute toying with Christianity comes in, but is dressed for the street, do you kick her back out because she could (and will!) distract and detract from the worship? Scum is a ministry, a mission field. It is, by it's very nature, different than the "normal" church. The ends don't justify the means, but here they weren't trying to! In offering a poem about finding God in the midst of delinquents, I can think of few things that would have struck a deeper chord with those at Scum, and the language would have been "authentic" to the congregation. I am not arguing her language was any moral sense better or worse. I am arguing that if she had tried to express it in any other way, it would not have had the effect it did have (and still is having) to the people at Scum. So do we place the people who are intregued by the ministry above those for whom the ministry is intended? It's a hard question, obviously!

Her words aren't higher than Scripture. Does that mean that God can't speak through them? At what point did the Psalms become Scripture, and thus appropriate for followers of God to read in worship? The Reformation hymns were called the "Geneva jigs" because they were so different from the medieval chant of the Church; now they are often considered 'outdated' and 'boring.' "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all to the glory of God." Thank God, he can use our offerings when they are given fumblingly and humbly to him; praise God he did here.

And one last note before I (finally) quit. Scum is not an emergent nor a postmodern church. It is a missional church. There really is a difference!

Mike, Kate, Tim, Josh, all you guys at Scum -- I miss you tons!

Thanks for your comments makamell. It is certainly apparent that one can never have enough context. I can certainly see that if Scum is regularly like that (poems with words that some consider profanity, etc.) then anyone attending would realize that, and anyone inviting someone should advise the invitee of that fact. In the way the story was originally told on this blog, it appeared that this service was not a usual one (it was a Christmas one), that invitees and others not used to the use of certain words were expected to be there, that the use of the particular f word was unusual enough to warrant a specific pre-reading warning. My point is that if the poem requires a specific pre-reading warning, and visitors are expected (as they would be on a Christmas service) then the warning that was given was neither sufficient, timely, nor sensitive enough. The congregation should have been warned in the previous service that a moving poem, with potentially offensive language, would be read at the next service. That way, anyone inviting someone would have had fair warning. In any event, asking people to leave a service just strikes me as so unloving that it can never be warranted. If a warning is warranted, and it appears that the pastor felt one was needed, then it should be given well before the service is held, should also notify people before they enter the door and the service begins. Anyway, the event is over, I believe the point has been made that Scum's mission and manner of carrying out that mission is valid and G blessed, with Paul I praise G when I hear of the faith of other Christians, and I pray G's blessing on Scum.

J. Inglis