Potty-Mouth Christianity
June 28th, 2010The world is a cruder place than it was twenty or thirty years ago. Not so long ago there were certain words you couldn’t say on television or print in newspapers. Nowadays the use of coarse language is perfectly acceptable. We are becoming a nation of potty-mouths. Language that used to be deemed inappropriate in polite society is now commonplace, so much so that many in the Christian community have even adopted it. Common language that everyone else in the English speaking world uses and hears on a daily basis is considered okay. It creeps into our casual conversation, our blog posts, our emails, our text messages, this infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary culture.
The “vulgarization” of Christianity is even being evidenced in our evangelism. We’re repeatedly told by the experts how important it is for the church to “engage the culture.” Evangelical strategists and savvy church leaders keep telling us that Christians need to be more tuned into contemporary culture. “We need to take the message out of the bottle.” To accomplish this some pastors are resorting to vocabulary and subject matter that is at times tasteless, indecent, crude, and utterly inappropriate for a minister of Christ. Some Christian movie makers have also begun incorporating adult themes and coarse language in their work.
In defense of one such movie a brother recently explained to me that this kind of film was intended for nonbelieving audiences, to be shown outside the church, that these kinds of raw images depict real life situations that the unchurched can relate to. And after all, did Jesus really say we shouldn’t use swear words anyway? Are we even sure that people used swear words in Jesus day?
Fair enough. Though Jesus himself may not have spoken directly to the issue of swearing, here’s what Paul had to say:
Ephesians 5:4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.
Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
Colossians 3:8-10 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.
The point is this. I don’t care what you think pop culture says is acceptable, because we have new life, because we have a risen life, certain things should characterize us. The Bible says we are to discard the rags of our old life and put on the righteousness of our new life in Christ. After all how can we ever possibly hope to have any kind of positive impact on this world for the sake of the kingdom if our lives are no different than anyone else? How in heaven’s name could we ever think that God would want us to draw people to Christ with communication that is displeasing to Him and so contrary to His character? That to me is a Christianity that is inauthentic and a gospel that is irrelevant. Jesus said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” – John 12:32. Drawing people to Jesus is Christ’s job. We are merely the vessels He chooses to use. Let’s be sure we represent Him well.
June 29th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Don, I completely get what your saying and I agree. I must say that it seriously bothers me to know that some pastors use “questionable” language in the pulpit….what happened to being above reproach?
As far as the movie the brother was speaking to (since I think I was there) let me approach from a slightly different vantage. Many folks are touting the particular film as an “evangelical film,” I think even the makers are putting it this way. However, upon reading more and more about the piece it seems that it is not an evangelical film meant to stand on it’s own, as much as an evangelical tool to start a process. My understanding (without seeing the film) is that is lays out many issues to spur discussion and open doors — it’s like a parable that is not meant to stand alone but rather to have someone there to interpret the deeper meanings, and with Bible in hand point out the answers to the problems laid out in the piece. Again though, it is my understanding it was never meant to stand by itself. Does that make it right? No, but it does cloud the issue since the film is actually making a statement that these things are wrong. (again this is my understanding without viewing the film)
Now not meaning to make this film into a soap box, but it intrigues me that as far as language in this film “Plugged In” magazine (part of Focus on the Family) gives a breakdown of the language and there are a total of 8 uses of 3 words that have been allowed in prime time television for several decades. “The Blind Side” however, which has been touted as a wonderful film within Christian circles, and from what I have seen has not received the same level of critical feedback for language, has 20+ instances of words that would be allowed in prime time, some which are typically limited to late prime tv, and not to mention various instances of using God’s name in vain and a racial slur. Yet people claim this to be a great family film then turn around and crucify the other film….where both could likely be used effectively as discussion starters and evangelical tools. (keep in mind I have not seen either film….)
Now does this make this type language appropriate?? NO
Do we need to use it? NO
Is it needed to reach and connect to our current society?? NO
Does it make the message being presented more relevant? NO
Is it appropriate for pastors to use in the pulpit??? NO, NO, NO
So, I’m actually right there with you. Albeit I’m bothered with how we all pick and choose what to complain about…whether it be books, movies, commercials, whatever….as Christians we have knack for making ourselves look foolish — accepting one thing, attacking another, but where is the difference? (and that is a whole different discussion….)
I must say there are subject matters, issues that people face today (especially teens) that many churches are scared to death to talk about. We don’t need vulgarity to address these issues, but we do need to stand up and face them. That is where so many churches today fail our young people. We need to seek God’s guidance in how to approach these issues without becoming vulgar ourselves.
I do think you stated well: “I don’t care what you think pop culture says is acceptable, because we have new life, because we have a risen life, certain things should characterize us.”
Okay, I’ll be quiet now….
Was that confusing enough?
Jason
June 29th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
I do think there is a difference between the two films you’re talking about. One was made in Hollywood for the purpose of entrainment. The other was written and co-produced by a youth pastor along with his church for the purpose of making a Christian worldview movie. I guess what I’m struggling with is this. What does it say about Christianity and our society when we feel we’ve gotta swear and use adult themes in order for people to take us seriously?
June 30th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Oh, I definitely agree on the difference of the films. Also from what I’ve read, there may be some things that are over the top (i.e. unneeded) in the Christian worldview flick. It sounds like it does address issues that need to be taken on, BUT the question is does it go too far in portraying situations?
Now when we start to say that we’ve gotta swear and explicitly portray adult themes in order for people to take us seriously…I gotta say that’s wrong. There are “mature” topics that churches need to face…need to be willing to deal with…but those issues need to be approached with decency and with Christ as the focal point (not the issue as the focal point).
Here’s a question…. Does it really matter if the world takes us seriously within the word’s worldview? Where we stand is in opposition to the sinful nature of the world…so why try to dress ourselves up to be accepted by the world?? Isn’t that the same as putting a basket over our light?
June 30th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Well I guess when it comes to “dressing ourselves up” I like to go back to the example of Chinese missionary Hudson Taylor who adopted the Chinese dress and lifestyle in order to reach the Chinese culture despite criticism from the western community. The Apostle Paul was another example of a believer who to the Jews became as a Jew, to those outside the law became as one outside the law, to the weak became weak, adopting the particular culture, yet without compromising the law of Christ, so that he might lead someone to Christ. I have no problem with believers crossing cultural barriers in order to share their faith. If you believe saying “dude” and preaching from a coffee table enables you to better engage whatever culture you’re trying to reach, that’s fine. But we must be so careful not to allow our cultural engagement to cross the line over into behavior that is clearly unbiblical and unChristlike.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Ditto….
Kinda like dressing in camp missionary clothing
June 30th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Something else. I think sometimes we think a little too highly of our importance in God’s eternal plan than we should. After all it wasn’t the little boy who fed the 5,000, it was Jesus. He didn’t need a little boy’s lunch in order to preform a miracle. But by using that lunch He allowed the boy the blessing of taking part in the work that God was doing. So really when you think about it that’s all we really have to offer, just loaves and fishes. God isn’t dependent on us to save the world. Thank goodness for that. He’d sure be in a mess if He were. But because He loves us He allows us to participate in what He is doing. And the very best way we can do that is to be just like Him as much as we possibly can be.
July 6th, 2010 at 10:01 am
FYI….
This may well be a bit of a bunny trail but the movie we were speaking of… I have now seen it. To say that it is an evangelical film is off base — in my opinion, way off base. The story could possibly be used as an evangelical tool, but really the story itself is geared toward those that are steeped in the church — particularly teens and youth leaders. I also would not call it a “Christian worldview” film, but rather a teenager worldview film. It shows teen struggles, teen issues, things that they face in the world and even shows how they are failed by friends, parents, and yes even churches. It ends up giving a glimpse of part of what Christianity is really about (relationally) and it does it by showing actions. Naturally this is a nut-shelled view, and an actual synopsis would take a while.
Honestly, I’d say it’s gotten more bad press than it deserves. Is what’s in it there to make it more accepted or relevant??….I don’t think so. I’d say it’s there to make it more real to life, and honestly it’s very tame in some ways compared to real life. Now, of course that doesn’t justify any decisions that were made in making the film, I’m just making some observations.
July 6th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Having not seen the film myself, your explanation is the general consensus of everyone I’ve heard from. But here’s the thing. If as you say (and by the way as all the film critics seem to agree) that this film is “geared toward those that are steeped in the church — particularly teens and youth leaders” and not necessarily geared toward the unchurched, then I go back to my original point. Why is it so necessary for Christians to swear in order to share the message of God, particularly when the audience is largely church people? My fear is that profanity has become such a part of our culture and that believers have become so desensitized to it that we don’t even think twice about it anymore.
July 7th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
I agree with the gist of what you’re saying. In defense of Driscoll—and the article about him was well over three years old—I have the sense that he’s toned some things down a bit, possibly after hanging around with the Piper-types that he’s become accustomed to. I love Driscoll, just not everything about him, but I do think he’s gotten a little wiser with age with regard to his language.
July 12th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Let’s hope so. I guess my overall purpose for this post was less about indicting by name a particular person or people and more about pointing out an unhealthy trend among so called people of faith. While you may be right that Driscoll has toned some things down and that he’s gotten a little wiser, the fact is he still said what he said and unfortunately it’s indicative of the problem. I’m troubled by a church culture that would even flirt with the notion that coarse talk is acceptable and necessary in order for us to successfully further the gospel.
August 1st, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Apparently, we need to start swearing to get taken seriously
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299013/Swear-Bible-Vicar-urges-flock-modernise-start-using-blue-language-street.html