It is, as most things are, all about context. Why do we want to make hard and fast rules, why do we have to create a rule that is just not appropriate somewhere else? That is about being a pharisee, not about following Christ. Do I swear, virtually never. Have I ever sworn from the pulpit, no. But do I think that there are times when it might be appropriate, sure. How about we talk about things that really matter? When was the last time someone outside the church said, "well that guy said 'Damn' or 'sucks' (as Ed Young condemned yesterday) so there is no way I am going to that church"? So many other things that matter. This isn't one of them.

I agree with Adam S when he said: How about we talk about things that really matter?

It reminded me of the following quote from Tony Campolo:
I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a sh!t. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said sh!t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.

That video is hellarious! Man, I get pissed when people say "suck", filthy language like that just isn't needed any where...

Wait a sec, are "I'm screwed", "crap" and "sucks" cussing? What exactly has Driscoll been saying? I'm afraid I haven't listened enough to hear any "salty" language. I'm glad Ed is speaking up though, the man who taught us how to preach from a bed about sex definitely knows appropriate vs. inappropriate and what chasing after "cool" is all about!

Wait a sec, are "I'm screwed", "crap" and "sucks" cussing?

That was honestly my first (and ongoing) reaction as well.

i think we should worry first about whether our leaders (paid and lay) in our churches are raising their voices in anger at their kids and wives.

Oh yeah, Ed Young is a really good spokesman for a guy trying not to be cool. He really knows what it is like to not interfer with or mess up the gospel. Puhlease!

I think Ed needs to practice what he preaches.

Encouraging bad behavior is always a bad thing - like being distracted while driving :)
I have seen this done with several leaders (driving time with video conversation) - is this the new "cool" thing to do?

I'm not a Driscoll fan, but I do believe "cussing" or swearing as we call it in Oz is highly contextual and that there are many other bigger issues we need to give our attention to.

I have used all of those words mentioned above regularly in the pulpit because my audience understands/relates to them and would not be offended. There are words I wouldchoose not to use - but that is my choice and I certainly wouldn't inflict my personal standards on others.

Perhaps the bigger question is who are the 'language police' anyway? And who gets to determine what is acceptable?

This is not a black and white issue and those who try to make it one veer strongly into legalism I believe.

Allow Driscoll to listen to the HS and stop trying to be the HS for him I say.

Chasing cool? He's trying to chase cool by making a video that appears relevant but is basically spewing legalistic modernist rhetoric. Mark Driscoll is modern in post-modern drag. His problem isn't that he curses, but that he's an arrogant control freak who thinks the sun rises and sets in the crack of his behind. This whole conversation about cursing in the pulpit, what cursing is, etc. is irrelevant. The church has more important things to do.

Has anyone here willing to consider what the bible says about this? I have to think Ephesians 4:29 has some bearing on this discussion.

By the way, I think people should be troubled by the starving kids and troubled by the word Campolo used.

The Bible calls us to be different. The "world" has accepted foul language as just normal now. So, to me, Driscoll has fallen into this trapped and taken the Gospel message into this accepted delivery mechanism. I just don't agree. I don't think His message needs to be put in a form that conveys things of this world. God's word does not need dressing up.

Someone mentioned this in an earlier response, but here is Eph 4:29: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Again, the Word can stand on its own!!!!!

If the "curse" words Ed used are inherently wrong, why would he use them multiple times in this video? Ed assumes that the reason people use certain words is because they want to be cool. I think in some cultures that's just the common language people use.

Re: Ephesians, are we really grabbing one sentence from a letter written in prison about the union of a people to the Messiah and saying that therefore we shouldn't use certain combinations of English letters? With all the work to be done, have we really devolved into that?

There seems to be the idea in a lot of these comments that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't we (hopefully) lovingly confront someone on the "unwholesome talk" coming out of their mouth as Ephesians says while at the same time continuing to spur one another on in the larger issues of combating poverty, injustice, etc.? Are the two really that mutually exclusive? I guess I have no problem with people questioning Driscoll's use of questionable language since I think it adds nothing to his preaching although I wouldn't call for him to step down. And I think these same folks would probably agree that there are larger issues at stake in the world.

If you want to defend Driscoll, that's fine, just stay on point and don't cloud the issue by suggesting that this kind of confrontation somehow keeps us from accomplishing the larger, Kingdom-oriented objectives.

I listen to Driscol alot via downloads on the Mars Hill website. I have not heard anything that would be construde as 'Cussing' or "Swearing" in my local area (Working Class (Blue Collar) North East England).

He does tackle such subjects as masterbation, oral sex etc but that is not cussing n my book but life application.

What has he been saying?

Call me conservative, call me old-fashion, call me Canadian, but I don't see a place for cursing from the pulpit. Is that a hard fast rule, no, but in my mind it is suggestion to follow.

While in university I worked at establishments where 99.9% of the people there cursed as if it was going out of style. The fact that I tried my best to avoid dropping the "F-bomb" caused a few people to actually inquire of me why I didn't. Did I answer that it was because Jesus was in my heart? No. But, I did comment on my faith, and my commitment to try my best to say positive things, uplifting things, and cursing didn't really fall into that category. Does avoiding those words make you holy, obviously not, but there is something to said on some level for trying to be unlike the world when it comes to this topic.

Everywhere is holy ground, everyone is a 'minister' and every moment we live our lives is worship. Clergy, laity, doesn't matter. In my humble opinion, I think it would be good practice to just avoid, as much as we can, that kind of talk, whether behind the pulpit, or in front.

[i]Quote by furtney: "Wait a sec, are "I'm screwed", "crap" and "sucks" cussing?"[/i]

Where I come from (the Dakotas), these are cuss words, and considered inappropriate and unprofessional language for preachers, teachers, and any other public speaker.

As a former missionary, I am all about contextualizing the Gospel. But there's no place for syncretism. At least here in the West, there's strong evidence that the Church is being more influenced by the culture than the culture is being transformed by the Church. Using coarse language and joking may be more entertaining and draw bigger audiences, but are we seeing people move into a closer walk with Jesus? Have my doubts.

The greek word for "Crap" is used in the bible, maybe we should cut it out....

I don't get the criticism of Pastor Mark Driscoll anymore since he has openly (and repeatedly) repented for his cussing early on in his ministry. I'm getting really tired of John MacArthur who's entire public ministry seems to be built on debasing others.

The video from Ed Young is okay and his point is fine. Yet I wonder (like others) who gets to decide what is appropriate language and what is not? What might appear to be "cursing" in my context might not be "cussing" in someone else's context. Of course this comes from the guy who uses pretty extreme visual illustrations to make his points.

I listen to Pastor Mark Driscoll on a, nearly, weekly basis and have never heard him use strong language. He communicates plainly, yes, but primarily because that is his context. I appreciate Pastor Mark's ministry.

Perhaps one day we all will be so encumbered by ministry that we won't have time to gripe and prate on such minor things.

You are the Church!
R.A.

My first thought is that the gospel transforms our speech (Col. 3:8-10) as much as it transforms our attitudes towards poverty and oppression.

My second thought is that if cussing is done to be relevant, relevance does not stand out. God calls us to be different (strangers in the world ~ 1 Peter).

Hmmm. Where I live it goes like this -

sucks = a bad situation, bad luck, bad news.

crap = stuff, ie. "pick up that crap over there - pointing to a pile of boxes". or bad times, ie. "he's going through a lot of crap at work."

screwed = "we're in trouble now!"

Perhaps we should avoid syncretism all together and teach everyone to speak ancient Greek?

This entire discussion is nothing but skubalon!

No...the scariest thing here is that Ed Young called himself the HEAD of Fellowship Church. "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." This is a bigger problem than the so called cussing thing. I thought Jesus was the Head of the church. ????? hmmm.

**Wait a sec, are "I'm screwed", "crap" and "sucks" cussing?**

While the words themselves may seem harmless, what about the attitudes behind them. What are you really thinking (and saying in your head) when you use one of these words?

When I was in Bible college, cussing was a serious offense. Many people felt they needed to express themselves at times in a rather forceful manner. The "non-cussing" word of choice was DIP. This did not refer to an indentation in a road or a trip to the pool, but was used as an expression of disgust or anger.

Is DIP a cuss word? No, but it was used in place of those words and quite often with a less appropriate substitute being said in the speaker's mind.

I argued then (and still do) that it was "pseudo-cussing". DIP can easily be added to the words at the beginning of my post and listed as pseudo-cussing.

My humble opinion is that outright cussing and pseudo cussing have no place in the pulpit with any age group. I believe we should also encourage the people we minister to that these words are improper.

If nothing else, I do seem to remember the Bible saying something about not doing something that would cause a weaker brother to stumble...

"What are you really thinking in your head when you say those words?" asks allen above me.

Exactly those words. I don't think harsher cuss words and neither do I say them. Expletives are a part of speech. And until people stop hitting themselves in the thumb with hammers or expressing that sort of emotion, expletives are going to be used. Some of them are offensive to the majority of citizens of this country. But some, like the ones suggested in several comments above, are NOT offensive to the majority.

I hope I'm not the only person who is offended by others trying to tell me what's really going on in my head.

Am I alone in thinking that Ephesians 5 (especially verse 4) shouldn't be part - if not the end - of this question? Oh, and by the way... how does referring to both John Piper and Mark Driscoll as "card carrying Calvinistas" advance this discussion? Why not drop the pejoratives and stay on topic?

There seem to be about three basic arguments from those defending the use of this kind of speech:

1) There are worse problems out there, so why are we wasting our time on this.

2) It's not really cussing.

3) It's necessary to contextualize the gospel for his audience.

Here's how I see it:

1) This is a false dichotomy. We can be compassionate and active about the world's great problems while still tending to other relevant but less critical issues.

2) OK, even if it's not cussing in the strict sense, it's still crude language at best, and unnecessary. And it's not just Ephesians 4:29 that warns against this; it's the whole counsel of scripture. Philippians 4:8 comes to mind, as do numerous passages in proverbs and the warnings in James about the use of the tongue (and if course Jesus' linkiing of the orientation of the heart and one's speech in Luke 6:45 and in Mark 7 and Matthew 15)

3) There's a difference between contextualization and compromise, between being in the world and being of the world and taking on its ways. None of crude words used are necessary; there are less offensive substitutes for all that still get the message across. We really can be relevant without adopting the worst habits of the world we're trying to reach.

I'm cool. I'm relevant. I'm post-modern.

I cuss, I swear, I use foul language, and I can relate to the people in my culture.

I look down my nose at all of you prudish, Victorian, old-fashioned, legalistic language-cops.

Oh yeah. I'm cool. I'm real cool.

Ok people, gather round for a moment for some "truth in love" time (steps up on the soapbox)

I hope we're all putting as much time into getting to know our neighbors, investing other people, and praying for the people on our own street who need Jesus JUST AS MUCH as we are commenting on how much Mark Driscoll or whoever else needs to change his or her vocabulary. What an atrocius waste of time given the fact that so many people that live in our own neighborhoods are going to be in Hell.

Seriously, I truly hope you all are known in your neighborhoods by name and a positive part of the community and not just the guy who waves when he drives by "on the way to ministry." Whoever has the greatest and best ministry within their own neighborhood, let him cast the first blog rant. Or, sit at your computer with perfect evangelical approved lingo and talk to each other...

(steps off soapbox)

Dear God, please save us from legalism. Please give each congregation the wisdom to determine who is worthy of leadership without the need for second guessing from Southern California. Please help us to not get caught up in thinking that you really care about all the stupid little stuff we think you do, and then using your Word as a justification to live in a tiny, little box of rules. Please help us.

Excellent point Daniel Burke. Now in light of Ephesians 4:29 how do you think we should talk to those people? Or do you not think that verse and others about speech are worth considering? Doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.

I have to agree with Daniel there, we are always so worried about who is doing what in the world, when the people right around us are in need of the love of Christ, shown through us.

Show some love to one another!

The most bothersome thing about this is John MacArthur's response - calling for a person to step down from ministry?!?! That is far more ludicrous than someone saying a curse word. MacArthur has no such authority - though I can imagine from reading some of his book "Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong" that he supposes he has such authority.

Shall we call for John MacArthur to step down from ministry? After all, the a fore mentioned book is a nothing more than a case for Neo-Conservative politics, with a selective reading of the Bible to "baptize" what he says. It would have been more efficient for him to write a brief essay on why God is a Republican. (i.e. his section on the death penalty starts with a sentence that says something to the effect of: "There can be no question that God is in favor of the death penalty." When in deed there is a great question about it.) A quick flip through this heretical read and you swiftly know where brother MacArthur's allegiances lie. Again, allegiances are a huge deal for God's people - no one can serve two masters! Shall we call this into question?
Shall we ask John MacArthur to stop preaching? To stop writing books endorsing the killing of our enemies we are called to love? To stop preaching Republican politics and masking it as the gospel of Christ?

Here is what I want to see. I want to see John MacArthur debate Stanley Hauerwas! "O Lord on High, May I please be granted this one request?"

I agree with Daniel Burke, and Dave. Sure, Eph 4:29 has an impact on how we talk to people; but what's important is not that we edit our conversation to a high polish, but rather that we are in fact talking to people. I've certainly slipped out a few words in conversations that I recognized as being something I wouldn't say in a church. But I have never questioned the overall impact of those conversations, when I have been authentic and concerned with sharing the Gospel in love.

Driscoll's language is a question for his church to address. The rest of us need to be using our language in our own communities, especially with those who need to hear the gospel. I've wasted too many words (vulgar or not) as it is.

I find it fascinating that as Christians, we seem to be unable to gather at the family dinner table and converse through ideas and questions. When someone raises a question, both sides seem to rally with sarcastic rhetoric either suggesting that "you should mind your own business, get some people saved, look at your own sin", or that we should throw stones and poke at those in question.

We never seem to get anything done, because we forget, we are having an in-house discussion. This isn't she said vs he said, or us vs them. This is us, a family, brothers and sisters in Christ, trying to work through a relevant question. Instead we get answers like: children are dying in Africa, people are going to hell, and this whole topic is a waste of time. (p.s. to those who think this is waste of time, why waste time posting?)

This is why, unfortunately, Out of Ur becomes a place where people rant and rave. Very few people interact with the question, and not much gets fleshed out. It is a shame. Out of Ur is a public place. It is on display for the world to see. Too bad it can see some vibrant, healthy discussion.

Cussing is an interesting topic. The church freaks out over it while in our culture it is perfectly okay. What are we to do as a church is the question? I agree when thinking that there are bigger issues to talk about but this is relevant for us. I think we have to realize that some situations call for a really strong word, as Paul used in Philippians 3:8. The word which is rubbish in most of our english translations carries over much stronger than that in the greek. So we have to see that Paul considered his sin and past life as "dung" or "shit" as some may translate it. It seems to me that it is okay to use strong words when a circumstance calls for them.

I do also think it is childish to just cuss for the heck of it. I think it shows a lack of education because you can't use a word that consists of more than four letters.

And to put my two cents in about Driscoll. The argument is old. He has repented repeatedly from his pride and arrogance. This is more than we can say of most pastors that don't cuss. Interestingly they are the ones that need to repent of all their religion. Driscoll is a man who loves Jesus and His church. I praise God for that ministry that has been so richly blessed and seen so many other chuches planted for the sake of the gosple continuing to go out to the nations.

I think in general we need to check scripture and see what it says. And I think we need to make sure to have our facts straight before we talk trash about people that we know nothing about. What do you think?

I'll vote for reckless.

no one self promotes like ed young jr. except maybe Kevin Smith.

All I could think about while watching the video was: He's scary enough, busey-esque and now he's driving and speaking... i'm never gonna drive in dallas without fear again.

did he say something about cussing.

Pastor Mark is a very raw Christian. His preaching and his story resonate with me because he preaches to people for whom the language is their everyday language. I am not into the holier than thou message. For folks who are still mired in life's personal messes Mark provides a pastors stability. I have been engaged in inner city ministry my whole life. I see the tract bearing families all happy and smiling. What they don't see is the tracts are tossed and person all but forgets the hollow prayers. Christ to them is a distant person not a reality not someone who exists in their reality. Their reality sometimes is very crude by 'normal' Christians standards but God meets them where they are at through pastor Mark and that in the end is what matters. As they move from Justifying grace through to perfecting grace the results may not be what we expect. But in the end what matters is what God is doing through Pastor Mark. If his Church was in Minneapolis I would be very comfy sending folks who want someone who tells it like it is and doesn't mince words to Pastor Mark.

"Driscoll's language is a question for his church to address."

I've been back and forth about this point. For the most part I agree, but I suppose I can understand why MacArthur would address this. Clearly Driscoll is a national figure, how he ministers has effect on more than his local church body. However, it probably isn't good to drag a somewhat silly debate like this into the national spotlight either.

Personally, I generally like Driscoll's messages a lot but don't agree with the language thing and maybe other aspects of his style. If he was sincerely trying to work more effectively for God, I'd think he'd instead trust God enough to do it in a more obedient way, and the Bible is not that vague about course or vulgar language. I think the purpose is more to project a certain image of his ministry and himself. So like so many other things in life it may boil down to an issue of pride on his part.

What a brilliant post and so on the pulse of post-modern Christian culture.. and a catchy title :)

Oh, and, does anybody really take John MacArthur seriously anymore? Maybe I'm wrong but I've found him to be too extreme, too polemical. To call Driscoll to step down seems so MacArthur to me and... almost legalistic.

So Eph 4 is about 'cuss' words?

Really?...

Or have modern day legalists just placed that interpretation on it?

I'm still waiting for one of the 'non-cussers' to tell me which words precisely are off limits... Tell me your list... Or would that only serve to highlight the futility of this mode of thought?...

I agree with Adam and Ricky...there are far more important things for us as a Church to contend with than whether a pastor at a church I DON'T ATTEND uses harsh language to drive home a point.
There's been plenty of times I've wanted to off load on some brothers and a couple of sisters who seem to have the same cranial density as basalt.

As for Ed and John...well, they, like the rest of us, have a right to their opinion, so you can pick it up and take it home with you, or leave it where they drop it and go on.

Interesting dialogue. Now - what does God's Word say?

"But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips' - Colossians 3:10.

"Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place ..." - Epheisians 5:4.

If Paul says these things are out of place in our everyday relationships, I can only surmise that the same would be true from the pulpit/podium. And even more so. We have been called by God to represent Him. We are speaking on His behalf to a people that desperately need to grow in their faith and learn how that faith impacts their day-to-day struggles.

We're not only speaking/teaching/preaching, but we're modeling what it looks like to live a mature, godly life - even when life isn't working for us.

Surely, we can find a more Christ-honoring way to express what's true about where we're coming from.

I have a problem with profanity. I have since I got saved. In my fundie days, I used to really work on it. I've since realized that I need to work on things like loving my enemies, serving the poor, preaching the gospel, loving my wife, etc.

Should I stop cussing? Yes. Agreed. I'm a dirty sinner who cusses. But I only have so much energy to focus on reforming specific behaviors. A better question might be: what is the priority of 'stopping cussing' in Christian holiness? Shouldn't we focus on being obedient to the Sermon on the Mount first, and once we have that down move to something else? Should I read the bible more, or get a swear jar?

Seriously, what is more damaging to the church, gossip or cussing? I think we can all agree that gossip is, but we aren't having this discussion about gossip.

Also, since I have some background in sociology, the function of 'cussing' in church is to show who is in the in group and who is in the out group. All groups use language (jargon) to separate themselves from others. This is the function of most legalistic behaviors, to show distinction. How much do we Christians want to play this cultural game? Or are we assuming that we Christians are the only humans immune to it?

Also, personally, since I'm becoming a pastor, my struggle with profanity humbles me. It is a very public struggle. In many ways, I'm grateful to struggle win a sin so publicly, as opposed to all the other sins I'm so very good at hiding.

I think that on the whole, there are just certain words that aren't helpful to use in sermons. I'm agnostic on the value of the words themselves, but certainly when one takes into account the way it will affect how people view you and your worthiness to lead in the church, than from a pragmatic point of view, why take the risk?

On the other hand, for me, this is clearly majoring on the minors. I mean, this article seems to have drawn in one day as many responses as the entire series on the patriot's bible. Please, everyone, I am sure we can find bigger fish to fry than profanity!

"I'm screwed," "crap," and "sucks" aren't cussing where I'm from. (So. Cal.) I really don't see the big deal.

This really is a cultural issue. In some (low-brow) cultures, "screwed" and "sucks" are normal and words like "interregnum" would be mocked. In some (high-brow) cultures, "screwed" is uncouth and "interregnum" is a word that would be understood and appreciated.

A communicator needs to be aware of who's reached and who's distanced by the words used.

I just wonder, "What kind of language does Mark Driscoll want his kids using?"

They'll probably be snotty kids that tell their dad to "piss off," and he'll deserve it.

If you can't control your tongue, you can't control anything (Read James). Paul said that everything is permissible for me, but not everything is good for me to partake of. Yes, I could drink, smoke, cuss, and stay on Facebook all day long, but is it what I really need to do? As far as 30,000 starving children ... helping them begins with you and I letting God do what He wants to do in us ... down to the last detail. Then we can be for others what we need to be. And He did say to watch our conversation whether it's cussing or just talking about things we should not be talking about.

isn't it disturbing that he's driving while makeing this video? He's not taking his hands off the wheel while looking at the camera. Shouldn't he be careful not to drive and video blog? waht does this demonstrate to those who are watching this. Funny he ends with drive carefully.....

My 15 year-old daughter told me this joke last week:

What did the little fish say when she hit a wall in the water? DAM [or] DAMN. I think either one works :).

Someone posted this:

I'm not a Driscoll fan, but I do believe "cussing" or swearing as we call it in Oz is highly contextual and that there are many other bigger issues we need to give our attention to.

I have used all of those words mentioned above regularly in the pulpit because my audience understands/relates to them and would not be offended. There are words I wouldchoose not to use - but that is my choice and I certainly wouldn't inflict my personal standards on others.

Perhaps the bigger question is who are the 'language police' anyway? And who gets to determine what is acceptable?

This is not a black and white issue and those who try to make it one veer strongly into legalism I believe.

Allow Driscoll to listen to the HS and stop trying to be the HS for him I say.

My response:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is counter-cultural in any age, and it has never called us to become like the world. Forget the fears of being "holier than thou." If that is a label you are afraid of, deal with it man. Let your conversation be always with grace, seasoned with salt (and you know what the salt is).

Rich -

In what ways is your church like the culture around it? Do you value beautiful buildings and fancy clothes? Do your members find value in what they drive, like the pervasive American Culture? Do your members get trapped in divisive political language (and could that be what Paul meant in referring to language - language that tears people down instead of builds them up?). Do the members of your church support war and torture, like most churches do in America (offering not the slightest degree of a "counter-culture" when it comes to this topic)?

Seems to me, you are asking Mr. Driscoll to be counter cultural and "deal with it" (the "it" being the consequences) while not asking the church at large to be more counter-cultural in matters like offering peaceful alternatives to war and violence, being downwardly mobile unlike the culture around us, and using compassionate and understanding language in all our human interactions.

Perhaps we like to poke and prod at the "easy rules" to keep, and point an accusing finger. This way we are affirmed that "we are in" and "they are out" - it's much easier that way!

BTW - My church is guilty of being cultural in all the ways I just mentioned. The question for me is not will I oppose my church, but will I bear patiently in love and transformation with my church.

The bible does not record our precious King, the Lord Jesus Christ, using filthy communication. Nor any of the apostles. The bible does say in Col 3:8 "But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth." I don't understand why Mark would take the chance of offending our precious, loving Savior through this kind of speech, when it is so totally unnecessary - we know for an absolute fact that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading people to Jesus without the need for filthy communication.

Oh, please. Do you realize how self-righteous and ridiculous some of you sound? It's like a crotchety middle-aged person saying, "Those darn kids." You do realize that words are just words, right? And that the "acceptablity" of words changes over time? That a word that wasn't acceptable 100 years ago in one culture now is? How about the word "faggot?" Totally unacceptable, right? Used to mean "sticks" and still used to refer to British meatballs. How about context? I have heard an actual dog breeder use the word "bitch" to refer to his dogs. Is that "wrong?"

As long as our words aren't used to hurt or tear down others, they're just words. Combinations of letters and sounds with meanings with which WE invest them. There's really no difference between saying "darn" and "damn," or "shoot" and "shit," or "this sucks" and "this is horrible." If you honestly believe that one of those is offensive to God, then all the substitutions must be as well.

Now, if you want to argue that a believer should be cautious about using certain words because the cultural perception of those words might hurt her/his witness, then I'll engage. Or if you want to argue about the way the words are USED? I'm there. But if you want to argue that the words themselves are somehow evil? I don't buy it.

I think that Rocky and others don't realize that in our translations of scripture many of the "vulgar" words have been translated more nicely. There is "shi*" and other words that a pretty strong. So claiming that there is not is just not true.

My question in all of this is...WHY? Why do we have to use them? Does using slang make us appear more culturally sensitive? Does using profanity make us look more relevant? Does using vulgarities really make a point that simply using sensible language can't make?

What happened here? Since when do we actually support a culture that is chaotic, immoral, debased, and vulgar? Since when has the body of Christ started thinking that the more I look like and sound like the world that we are actually having an impact? Language is God's gift to us so that He might communicate His truth to us.

I do agree that words shift and meanings come and go over generations, but people, Really! Are we just looking for excuses to not be careful and guard against a mindset of "anything goes?"

By the way for those who think Eph. 5 doesn't fit into this conversation - How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Seems like the logic of a person who only wants to take the Bible and conform it to his/her lifestyle of choice rather than letting it (the Bible) change you into God's choice.

Actually, all the talk about justice versus language...

Even if we granted that all culturally determined profanity was going to be always out of bounds it's still pretty self-righteous to imply some kind of one-to-one correspondence between a naughty word and the death of thousands, much less the death of thousands who may be without Christ.

They just aren't the same thing... they aren't even in the same category of importance.

A naughty word--in my home or a pulpit VS. a human life destroyed or wasted.

If you can honestly find the emotional resources for equal outrage there really is something wrong with you...

the reason Campolo's famous aphorism incites so much push back is because it DOES reveal a lot about a person's heart and priorities...and no, it's not Mr. Campolo's heart and priorities that are deficient on this one, friends.

Bottom line:
There's a lot of reasons to criticize Driscoll--this just ain't one of them.

Ok, I'm not a seminary scholar, so I don't know Greek and Hebrew, but I was a literature major, and I love to ruminate on word choice.

I just think it's sort of silly to get all worked up about certain words being used without regard to context. There is nothing magical about certain combinations of 4 letters that makes them "bad".

It is the intention behind the language, and the meaning of the syntax that should be the issue. If a pastor is using profanity (or not) to cut members down rather than build them up, or to engage in conversation that is offensive or inappropriate to the audience then he or she should stop. Using words that in some cultures are considered "low-brow" may offend those with sensitive social graces, but if there is no evil intent, it is not sinful.

I would rather my little girl use "crap" in casual conversation as a colorful term for "stuff" than cut someone down using nary a curse word.

Is John MacArthur our contextualization guru now? I have really gone through the looking glass.

What I hear in many of the comments above is the biggest tool the Enemy is using against the Church and Western society today-- relativism: "your truth is yours and my truth is mine, it's all relative, isn't it?" No it isn't. There are absolutes, including what's appropriate language to be used by Christians who are supposed to be "salt" and "light" to the world. Also, I'm disappointed that some writers are apparently too young, or too naive, to know of the derivation of some common (pun intended) slang terms now in use such as "suck" and "screwed." Brothers and sisters, get it together and stop compromising!

Um, yeah, because nobody here could possibly come to a reasoned position about the contingency of language and culture and it must all be about being "young" or "naive".

yeeesh.

I don't think there is ever a good time for our pastors to cuss during their surmon's, it borders hyprocracy even to make a point.

I think the Bible is pretty clear about what kind of language you are to use. I do think that there is a RARE occasion that only a curse word works. But as part of your regular vocabulary - no; and from the pulpit - no, no, no. That's not judging; that's living biblically.

I guess my only concern would be hearing my PASTOR use words that I've taught my children shouldn't be used by Christians. That would really stink.

"brood of vipers", "whitewashed tombs" "you eat a camel and strain out a gnat" these all seem to be things that are un helpful and not building people up. hmmm who said them agian? come on get over yourselves and worry about the important stuff.

It's amazing how the level of importance plays in the role of our acceptance to whether we should pay any attention to it. Without the blood of Jesus, does it make a difference if someone murdered or spoken a white lie?

Should I be grateful that I'm not like the man who committed adultery, stolen, and/or murdered?

While there are bigger problems in the world, it doesn't excuse us from addressing the smaller ones.

While I cannot comment on the specifics on each individuals discussed here, the question remains to be a good one. In addition, while I will not argue what is considered to be cussing or whether it is appropriate for anyone, it is clear that we should avoid it if it causes anyone to stumble.

The very fact that this is argued only supports that we should avoid it. In Paul's time, it was about what we ate and about their hair. Today it is about cussing.

While there are bigger problems, leading others away from Jesus because we do not seem any different from others as a result of cussing is a serious problem in itself.

So instead of making it a law, why not avoid losing the opportunity to lead others because of the words we use.

I know some may argue that it may help lead others. However, you usually do not take an alcoholic to a bar to help them overcome their drinking problem. Therefore, why use something controversial just to speak their language?

So this big discussion is on cussing in the pulpit. Imagine if pastors had the balls to speak about relevant, biblical topics pertaining to our bodies being the temple of the Holy Spirit and did not shy away from words, like penis, vagina, breasts, intercourse, masturbation, orgasm ... maybe we'd all have a better concept of sexuality, righteousness and holiness than we do! Good grief, I remember when pastors even shied away from using the "H" word when talking about Satan's domain so as not to offend innocent ears, yet people continue to live their lives as though they are attracted by its warmth! Get real, boys ... "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks!"

If we don't want to listen to what a man of God has to offer considering our speech, what does the Word of God say? Eph. 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." If you want to argue about that-then you argue with God. Don't use unwholesome talk...just speak the truth in love.

I am more disturbed by Johnny Mac's censorious Pharasaism than Driscoll's bloopers.As one commenter noted we should focus on things that matter. North America is the largest English speaking missionfield ,globally Africa is blighted by poverty and AIDS ,there are 2 million AIDS orpahans in Addis Ababa ,there are 30 million slaves in the perverse human trafficking trade,there is a global economic downturn, there are wars and rumors of wars..and MacArthur tells a gospel preaching pastor to step down because of the occasional scatological comment? MacArthur needs a reality check and a doze of what his radio show purports to offer: "Grace (to you")This is not about holiness it is a case study in "adventures in missing the point".

I find it funny that we are arguing over something that has been argued over for about 1800 years and no body has realized it yet. How do we convey the Gospel in terms that people can understand. If my history serves me correctly, the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek, the lower/common Greek, and into Latin, the vulgate translation which was again the common tongue, not the more elegant form of Latin. From there this translation got elevated into the higher form and people argued about translating it into the common tongue of people like english, french, german, and so forth, oh and some people died to so that we could have the simple gift of the Bible in a language we understand.

Yet when reading the Bible because I do have an older translation at one of the churches I serve at, I occassionally get to read the word "a**". While yes it is refering to a donkey, but I have more trouble with this word than "crap".

Strangely enough Jesus went into areas where other religious leaders would not go, became ritually unclean and yet brought people from those places back into relationship with God. Are we going to go where people are at to bring them the hope of the gospel if that is where the Holy Spirit is leading us? I'm not saying that we need to swear at people but sometimes the word "crap" fits the better than some big fancy word that I don't understand. If I don't understand the big fancy word, I won't understand the hope that you are talking about.

I think some of the comments above are missing the point. Swearing in the pulpit is indefensible for the simple reason that we could never decide where to draw the line. It seems to me that many "acceptable" swear words are just euphemisisms for the real thing? So if "crap" is acceptable, why not shit? If screwed up is acceptable why not fucked up? Why do those words offend and the others don't? This isn't about censorship, it's about how much of societal norms we want to let inform Christian behaviour. The fact is that all the questionable words mentioned above were once eschewed by both those in the church and those outside the church. Just because culture accepts them does not mean we have to to be relevant. I've been to Mark's church and have heard him preach a few times. I think he has a great ministry. I don't agree with John MacArthur that Driscoll ought to step down. However Driscoll's occasional swear word seems to be light years away from those who are trying to defend swear words for every one. It seems to me that the reference to Tony Campolo's famous comment is irrelevant. Tony wasn't talking about swearing, he was talking about being focused on the wrong things. Also, the medium is the message. You can't disconntect what you say from how you are saying it.

This argument reminded me of this paragraph from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "The Poet":

"What would be base, or even obscene, to the obscene, becomes illustrious, spoken in a new connexion of thought. The piety of the Hebrew prophets purges their grossness. The circumcision is an example of the power of poetry to raise the low and offensive. Small and mean things serve as well as great symbols. The meaner the type by which a law is expressed, the more pungent it is, and the more lasting in the memories of men: just as we choose the smallest box, or case, in which any needful utensil can be carried."

let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth...

But what defines wholesome? The traditions of man or the Word of God? David addresses his troops in Chronicles, "All you who p... against a wall" (in the Hebrew) and Paul used a more expressive word than offal (in the Greek)in Philippians. In fact the force of his argument, that human production devoid of the Spirit is best described as the excrement we all produce so easily, benefits from the more vivid wording.
The Bible outlaws using the Lord's Name in vain, more likely meaning to add the imprimatur of God without His approval to our pet teaching than to foramlly or otherwise speak of damning, and requires that words should build up and not tear down. Whether a word that refers to body functions offends a refined cultural sensitivity is not a Biblical test.
I don't like hearing what I consider coarse language, but I think calling for another to leave a position of ministry for employing it is more likely to run afoul of Biblical teaching concerning edifying speech than the mere use of language.

I used to build houses with a French Canadian who would use the filthiest language i had ever heard. i used to do my best to ignore him until one day in casual conversation he explained himself. To him they were just words. When he was really angry, or wanted to curse, he would swear in French. Cussing in English was in no way connected to his heart - the words had no real value. But a curse offered in French...that was another story

So that got me thinking...where does cussing or swearing really come from? Jesus talked alot about cleaning the inside of the dish first...maybe using nice words while cursing in our hearts is even worse than saying them...

And what difference is there between the pulpit and the rest of my life. If it is indeed all lived out in the context of relationship with God, then does it really matter where i am?

All language is contextual. It conveys meaning from one to another. Let's be honest, we are obsessed with all the wrong things. We communicators are obsessed with being trendy and hip. Listeners and critics (often the same people) are obssesed more with our mode of delivery than what truth was imparted.

And in our obsession we have sanitized Scripture. Song of Solomon 5.14 clearly describes the aroused male sex organ (which cannot be mentioned by the pious) as an jewel encrusted ivory tusk even though no translator would ever write it. (Read Intimate Allies by Tremper Longman III and Dan Allender)

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

The mere fact that it made national news that Ed Young was preaching from a bed is embarassing. For crying out loud, God created sex and we still giggle when we talk about.

by the way...if Jesus returns to judge me on my words instead of my heart, it would really suck, because damn...i'd be screwed.

Although they may do so privately, most public figures (including presidents, politicians, heads of universities, even celebrities) avoid using language in public that could be construed as obscene. These same people use the same guidelines for smoking and drinking in public. Why? They don't want to offend anyone. Pragmatic.

If any of the millions of pastors who drink or smoke were to do so while preaching, the responses here would be endless.

Oh yeah, Ephesians 5 also instructs Christians against engaging in those two "impurities".

Are we chasing cool Ed when we get our teeth bleached? When is it ok to let the culture influence us? In words or attitudes? In words or how we look on the outside? Are bleached teeth anything like white washed tombs -- clean on the outside while dirty with?

Is it really the words? I have seen some pretty religious people say some incredibly mean spirited things and not one of the words was a cuss word.
I understand we identify certain words as offensive and I agree that generally those words should not be used in some cases at all, but is it really the words themselves or the spirit from which they are spoken?
To swear to be cool or relevant is not to be cool or relevant. But there may be times when some words we deem cuss words might be acceptable.

I think it is a heart issue that the speaker knows best what spirit it was said in. Gosh Darn it and shoot can carry the same impact as the cuss words they substitute for and could qualify for the Eph 4:29 filter of unwholesome and un-edifying.

I agree we should be able to discuss this in community without getting all doing the very thing this post is about.

Language changes over years. Every generation espouses new words, or a new use of old words and until the previous generation die, there is always a division of camps as to what the meaning of that word really is.

The word 'nice' used to mean something ugly and uncomfortable... there are many other words that have changed their meaning to become the exact opposite of what they originally meant - 'wicked' is undergoing that transition now.

It's also cultural... many nations do not consider the words used in this video to be swearing. I noticed on a leadership newsletter from America the word 'bugger'. That would never be used by a Christian in Australia.

The guy on the video didn't hit it when he said people use those words to be cool... many of them, especially the younger people, use them because they're part of the language.

Question and a comment.
Is this a new debate? Is this the recycling of the Cussing Pastor debacle from a few years back? Was it a slow news day at CT/Out of Ur so ...hey let's rehash the Mark Driscoll V Johnny Mac spat?
Mac Arthur should step down from his pulpit for preaching syncretistic horse dump..As one post-er reminded us John has long been an exponent of the gospel = Republicanism and in his exposition of civil religion Scripture -twisted to support the IraQ war

Despite that I feel such language is not appropriate, the fact that it is often used to draw attention to the "pastor" so that others will hear his "message" is wrong. Isn't Christ the One Who should get all the attention? Our language matters. I do believe reading in the Holy Scriptures that we will be accountable for every word spoken... thus, we better chose them wisely!

It's interesting to note how many American Christians (mostly conservative) titter (can I use that word?) and giggle when they visit Germany and drive on the autobahn. I mean, how long do we have to put up with jokes about the ausfahrt on the autobahn? (Look it up!)

Ok, I would like to weigh in and say that swearing is not wrong. Inappropriate uses of any word in any language can be deemed as wrong and usually it is the abusive use of strong language that is deemed wrong. A word cannot have intrinsic wrongness to it - it is the motive, spirit, context, strength and purpose of a word used that gives it meaning. Four letter words mean what they mean because of the meaning we ascribe to them, which changes generationally or from language to language. Swearing is not wrong, it just can be. I believe the abusive use of language is wrong, crass language is unecessary and dirty or crude talking is foul. Are they wrong, no - because there are contexts where they are appropriate. Strong use of language is necessary in certain contexts - Christ said to call one a fool is to damn them to hell, but didn't he call someone a fool after that. Didn't he use strong offensive unacceptable language in public in regards to Pharisees and privately at times with his disciples? Swearing isn't wrong.

I'm more concerned that the pastor of a church would condone filming a YouTube video while driving.

Eyes on the road, dude.

I dunno...i guess I feel like there are more important things than discussing the language habits of some pastors. I also think that there is so much said in the Bible about the power of words and how we use them that we are to careful, watchful, even silent rather than misusing our language.
How about...we let God sort it out, when all things will be revealed....2 Corinthians 5:10 - For we must all stand before Christ to be judged. We will each receive whatever we deserve for the good or evil we have done in this earthly body.

As a mature Christian, after you read the MacArthur vs. Driscoll fray, haven’t you gotten that same weary feeling of a typical dad or mom, who at the end of a dreary nine-to-five day, takes off from a ready-to-drop job, only to find the two sons grappling with each other at home. The noise and haste of the world outside has so worn you out that you just heave a sigh and, with tears in your eyes, ask both: Why can’t you love one another?

Let’s refresh, once again, our memories with having truth without love. “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

Indeed, Jesus’ words pierce like a two-edged sword: “All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” John 13:35

I seem to remember that Moses brought ten commandments down from Mount Sinai, and one of them was not, "Thou shalt not say $#!# an awful lot." (insert the "crude language" of your choice.) If the language is sexually impure, intended to hurt someone else, disobedient to parents, or harmful to another person's reputation, then it is sinful. Otherwise, it's just a word, and each minister is free to use the wisdom God gave him to choose the words that fit his context. Granted, the occasion will be rare that it is appropriate to use the "seven words you can't say on TV" (or at least that you couldn't in the 90s) from the pulpit on Sunday morning. I have never done so myself in a formal sermon. On the other hand, when I work as chaplain at a race track, the vocabulary is different, and I would not feel restricted from using the language of that culture if it seemed fitting.

Does our preaching call our congregation to holiness, or does it lower the benchmark by its example?

Colossians 3:8 calls us to live above the world’s standard: “rid yourselves of ... anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”

One of the great problems in Christianity today is that we frame our questions as to how close to sin we can get without going over the line? A Christian sex-therapist wrote that most questions he receives are about “how far” can a couple go?

The question then begs, if there is a line to cross, and we are always looking at how close we can come, are we then in a sense asking, “How far can I stay away from God without crossing the line?” Further, “Are the Pharisees “the people saying the rule should be no cussing in preaching?” Or, are the Pharisees, “the people trying to determine the limits of how far the rule of cussing can go?”

The question is not about what is culturally relevant, it is about holiness. Hebrews 12:14 – “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.” Does preaching with cussing in your sermons reflect the Lord and His holiness? Or, do unbelievers ask, “what’s the difference between them and me?”

Is our behaviour in everything we do holy? 1 Peter 1:15-16 – But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." Holiness draws us closer to God and further from the world’s standards.

Lately I have heard the words sucks, screwed, and crap in the sermons at my church and I told my pastor that I find it offensive and distracting. I asked him to consider removing them from the preaching. I am not very conservative in my language. In casual conversation I use those words at times and I hear others using them and I don't really think much about it. I would prefer not to use those words because I think there are better ways to express a point. But I can't really say I have made cleaning up my language a priority. So maybe it is very hypocritical of me to ask that the people preaching clean up their language. If so I want God to convict me. But I guess the way I look at it is in terms of boundaries. I think using those words in Sunday morning service is a boundary violation. You don't preach a sermon in your boxer shorts and undershirt. But it is perfectly appropriate attire for Saturday morning at home with your wife. For me personally I find the words sucks, screwed and crap offensive in a sermon. Sucks and screwed both have sexual connotations but when they are used in a sermon the point that is being made has nothing to do with sex. So to me there is no point in it. It detracts from the sermon and causes my mind to shift to something else. As for crap I just think there are better words that could be used to illustrate a point in a sermon. Again thinking about crap kind of detracts from whatever point the preacher is trying to make. That's my two cents and I certainly wouldn't leave my church over it. But I did make my preference known. I do think we have to be careful not to judge the person who is using the language or make an assumption about why they are using it - unless they tell us why.

what ever is contrary to GODS word is to be laid down.are we not suppose to be new creatures in christ? aren't we suppose to strive in spirit to be like HIM?? ithink the answer to any question is simple would christ say that? would christ do that? And there we find our answer.GOD bless and may peace be with you