At the risk of putting my tongue in my cheek, I find the conversation around profanity pretty damn boring.
And before I shoot myself in the tongue, I should say, it seems like most of the current Christian cultural conversation exists between sanctimonious piety-signallers and oh-so-free edgelords.
What I mean is, people who count it a virtue to always use, or never use, certain four letter combinations. The piety signallers get on your case for saying frick or shoot when you stub your toe. The edgelords cuss in front of toddlers. For both of them, these four letter words are just one of the many ways they can show the rest of us their holiness.
And listen, I don’t want to talk off the top of my tongue, but it seems a bit juvenile. Let me explain.
There’s this quote attributed to Augustine that says :
Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.
And as you can imagine, the ease of language is a lot sexier of a sell than the wise moderation of it. It’s easier to never swear, easier to always swear, than it is to figure out how to use language. I mean, as soon as you want wisdom, as soon as you need discernment, you need to think, and who wants to do that ?
I wrote about this some fifteen years ago when the conversation around profanity sparked up because of Mark Driscoll. Allegedly, Mark used an F-Bomb in a sermon1. He would hurl, so the story goes, verbal cornucopias of bad words involving genitalia at staff meetings. And, like some teenage shock jock, wrote scathing blog posts about the Pussified Nation, under the alias William Wallace II.
And maybe our cultural lifecycle is signalling a need for a newer generation to start figuring out the nuance of language. Especially with how connected we have all become.
I mean, the Good Book commands pure speech, but then you’ve got Jesus calling the Syrophoenician woman a dog and labelling the Pharisees whitewashed tombs. Paul essentially uses a sanitized version of shit in Philippians 3.8 and in Galatians 5.12 he tells the Judaizers, the ones pushing circumcision, to go all the way — not just a snip but a chop.
And then you’ve got the whole passage in Ezekiel 23 where Israel and Judah are compared to the modern equivalent of porn stars lusting after well endowed sex machines. That’s how the prophet talks of their idolatry.
And so, the question becomes, how the H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks do we figure out how to talk ?
And, to help you keep your tongue to the ground, let me tell you my working answer to the question :
The tongue is sacramental.
1. The Americas and The Puritans
I don’t want to be banging my tongue against a wall for the rest of this essay, which means I should let you know this isn’t some scholarly piece. Most of my footnotes will be jokes, if they exist at all. This whole piece is aimed towards a theology of profanity, and all that means is :
I want to help the conversation along without having to provide data and stats for every single idea I’m proposing.
Like this one :
The Puritans baptized Victorian Etiquette.
Let me explain.
The Puritans were a 16th and 17th century movement out of the Church of England that wanted to continue to purify the church from its lingering Roman practices after the English Reformation. They mushroomed up out of the Calvinist movement and held to a strict moral discipline, plain worship, and pushed the idea of Scripture over Tradition. A bunch of them sailed westward, leaving Jolly Ol’ and landing in New England. Fast forward and you have a double-header of Great Awakenings, and subsequently, a significant reshaping of the American cultural identity.
Now, when I say they baptized Victorian etiquette, I mean that part of their strict moral discipline, though starting with scripture, was understood through their own context : a Victorian one. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a hermeneutical faux-pas.
This is where lots of ideas of extreme sobriety ( teetotalism ) emerged, same with an aversion to the body and sex2, and a hesitancy around varied kinds of sharp humour. A baptized, or Christianized interpretation of English Manners.
There are social-psychological papers on this, and you can read them if you want, but the main idea I am suggesting is that the Puritans left all kinds of prudish residue on American culture. It dusted the Revivalist ethos of the 18th and 19th centuries, and it coated the modern fundamentalist and evangelical movements with holiness codes that focus on external markers of maturity.
You know what I mean :
Don’t smoke, don’t chew, don’t go with girls that do.
Kissing Dating Good-bye.
And sure as shootin’ — don’t cuss.
I bring all this up to say that our roots, here in the Americas, are not unbiased when it comes to language. This tendency we have to moralize the externals, to focus on them, rather than our internal state, is all too reminiscent of the aforementioned condemnation Jesus levelled at the Pharisees.
To leave these scruples behind3 we have to first develop some foundational view of language, one that, hopefully, distinguishes Victorian Manners from Anthropological Transformation.
2. A Philosophy of Language
Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth : what I remember and have in my notes from Augustine and Aquinas on speech. Now, if you go away and tell me that De Doctrina Christiana or The Summa don’t put these ideas the exact way I do here, well, I’ll tell you to get off my back, er, tongue, and I’ll say :
You know what I’m trying to do.
Anyways.
In De Doctrina Christiana, or On Christian Doctrine, Augustine lays out this idea that words are signs of something else. A thing is something that exists, like a tree, and a sign points beyond itself and onto some other real thing ( the word tree and the tree itself ). Augustine says that there are natural signs and conventional signs. Natural signs signify by nature; like how smoke means there’s fire. Conventional signs signify by agreement. That just means they aren’t built into nature. We have words we agree upon that signify a particular referent. Like dog, or perro, or chien, or canis — it’s all dogs, just different agreed upon nomenclature.
Augustine says most human language is conventional, which means we can only understand by humility, community, and charity. And his view is that all signs, words, should be used to lead us into the enjoyment of God’s love. He thinks that misusing these signs, either by proud eloquence or obscene lust or vitriolic anger, corrupts their function.
In The Summa Aquinas says that truth resides ( might not be the right way to say this ) primarily in the intellect, and secondarily, in speech.4 His idea is that all speech exists to communicate truth, and that communication exists in relationship. Or, in normal people talk, things are true as the intellect conforms to reality5.
For Aquinas, lies are always sinful because they disconnect the intellect from reality. And that’s why blasphemy is such a big deal, it’s the ultimate lie, the ultimate intellectual disconnect from reality. It’s also why sinning against your neighbour, in speech, is such a big deal, because of who humans are : Imagers. That’s why gossip and slander and derision are sins.
Words, in this sense, carry a sacred kind of weight, because they exist to connect the whole person to Reality, with a capital R.
And I say this, not to draw distinctions between the actual philosophies of language; above there’s already two ( semiotic and Augustine, correspondence and Aquinas ), but to settle on some kind of foundation.
Human speech is intended to participate in the Divine Logos, Jesus Christ. Our language seeks to echo Him. When we are rightly ordered our speech shares in the Divine Reality; a movement from description to participation. The Reality, the Foundation, is the Triune God.
3. A Framework for Cussing
About five years ago Paul Maxwell wrote an article called A Biblical Approach to Swearing. The site is gone now, but I’ve got a web archive link below for you6.
I’ll give you a quick summary here, so you don’t feel in over your tongue.
His main goal is to explore the evangelical tradition and the evolving social world around “swear words” and determine, if we can, some sound through line.
The article gives five ways that speech can be morally wrong :
It can be harsh; using a tone that’s loud / aggressive, condescending, or belittling all for the sake of legitimate intimidation or intentional harm
It can be brash; directed at innocent persons and harmful through intent or excessive / disproportionate language
It can be false; intentional deception or lying
It can be irreverent; misusing God’s name ( Jesus’ name as an expletive, for example )
It can be inflective; the using of culturally designated taboo words, like the F-word, to scandalize
If there is any space for using the four letter words, it would find its grounding in the fifth category, because they are so tightly tied to cultural / societal norms or taboos.
To discuss what kinds of words could be inflective, and what would be fully prohibited by the New Testament, Maxwell works through Ephesians 4.29, 5.3-4, and 5.12 and comes to the following conclusions :
Unwholesome talk ( λόγος σάπρος ) refers to speech that harms others; not necessarily taboo words
Obscenity ( ἀἰσχρότης ) and foolish talk ( μωρολογία ) target brash, crude, or thoughtless language
Coarse joking ( εὐτραπελία ) aims at a kind of joking that undermines dignity and reverence in serious contexts
Profanity ( βωμολοχία ) is a category of disrespect toward sacred things; which could be contextually taboo, but not necessarily
To this, Maxwell mentions that in Ephesians 5.12, the shameful or dark deeds, needs explaining, too. Mainly because Paul himself isn’t above using strong language to describe sin, think of Phil 3.8 or 1 Cor 5.1, where Paul says all things are excrement compared to knowing Jesus, and where he discusses incest, a dark and shameful deed.
Maxwell’s conclusion is that inflective language, used in neutral and sparing ways, can be a legitimate tool for emphasis. He says that the taboo maintains its force when it is forbidden, and that the overuse of taboo words cheapen and dilute them. The idea is that a strict policing of speech, down to the very words themselves, is the same kind of banning culture expects with rigid political correctness, and that banning them would just lead to other words taking their place.
And so, the idea is that :
cheap and irreverent language used for harm or provocation is not so good,
but, inflective language, used as a way to confront and cross lines, can be a powerful rhetorical tool.
4. One Level Deeper
As a rule of tongue, I’ll offer a few of my own guidelines :
I think our speech helps us guard our passions. Not really my idea, actually, it’s what Jesus was on about when He said :
Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
Our words reveal who we are and what we love, and if we pay attention to them, and the intent behind them, we can learn a lot about ourselves. And when we pay attention to ourselves, we might just find a bit of a mess. Which is why I think it becomes easy to draw a straight line between this learning and a complete abstinence from all big bad words.
But I don’t think that’s the right solution.
A prohibition towards drunkenness is not a prohibition towards all wine or beer or whiskey or backyard moonshine. Can’t be. Jesus turned water into wine, and He drank wine with His disciples at the Last Supper, and He is preparing a Feast for the Life to Come, and you bet there’s gonna be wine there, too. These prohibitions are, instead, invitations into discernment and maturity.
Out of one thing and into another.
Let me explain.
My kids can’t cross the road by themselves, not yet. All they know is the danger of the oncoming cars and that they need to hold my hand. But soon, hopefully, they’ll grow up enough to discern the use of roads, and hopefully, they’ll be able to J-Walk all by themslevs.
If you take these two ideas, words as revelation of who we are and words as invitations into wisdom, you’re left with the idea that words are, in some sense, sacramental. As in, they are holy things by which we are prepared to receive grace and be formed by it. Words dispose us towards holiness, or theosis.
And that is, if you don’t mind me saying, music to my tongue. A promise that the mature use of my language will help reconstitute my body towards all that which is good. That means, sorry to say, that derivative, easy answers, will not lead to the transformation we desire. As in, the strict banning or the libertine allowance of all words is like always needing to cross the road holding hands. Cute for a toddler, embarrassing when you’re 37.
Here’s the thing about wise discernment; it’s not fully objective.
Some wisely abstain from alcohol because they were addicted, and some enjoy a double of the top shelf by the same wisdom. And I think the same goes for language. Some will abstain, some will wisely use. That means, with a right and wise foundation, I kinda encourage you to follow your heart. Well, tongue, really.
5. Joe and Gavin
September 1st Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund had a conversation about the use of profanity. Worth a listen, I guess, if you’re interested in what these guys have to say. I don’t know much about them, and don’t know all the details or the background. What I did pick up was…some obvious animosity.
Here’s a quick summary :
Both of the guys, up front, shared some concerns with a cultural shift to a kind of casual use of strong language, even in online Christian spaces. They also agreed on the opposite; there exists a cowardice in the online space; people not saying the hard things, prophetic things, that cut and illumine a dark culture.
The core of their dispute, emerging, I think from some tweets and videos, centred around a hermeneutic of imitation. How does a person imitate the serrated edge of speech, like Jesus or Paul or the Prophets, given varied callings and contexts, while also honouring texts that command a purity in speech ?
Good question.
Lots of the conversation, to me at least, seemed defensive on both sides. But if I listened rightly, here’s what each of their main thesis were :
Gavin says that sharp or harsh language should only be used to expose evil, and that most of what he sees happening in the online, Christian world, is excessive vulgarity.
Joe says that satire and mockery and profanity are a valid rhetorical approach for rebuke, confronting an evil culture, and shocking people into a more clear view.
They circle this recent situation where Doug Wilson called some women “small breasted biddies”. I don’t know who he said this to, but it would not be the worst thing he has called women7 ( worth checking that footnote out ).
Nor would it be the creepiest8 ( and this one, too ).
Doug’s turn of phrase becomes the concrete foil they use for their theologizing of language, for their moralizing of profanity. And it was a bit weird9. Joe didn’t simply get to propose a framework for harsh language, he had to defend his team and his tweets; and, I mean, of course, he had to.
And even with if you take ethics out of the equation, Gavin has the rhetorical high ground — because what Doug said is a hard sell to the majority of people who are watching Gavin’s channel.
Anyways.
Gavin says this use of language, the biddies, doesn’t help with the exposing of evil or unmasking of sin. It’s just added mockery and derision piled up on top. It makes things worse.
Joe disagree, says this is satire, exaggeration and hyperbole of ideological types, as some way to expose the roots of the archetype.
And they mostly talk past each other defending their views.
Ezekiel 23 gets brought up, with the sex-crazed adulterous women lusting after men who had “members like that of donkeys and issues like that of horses.” Gavin says this graphic language is founded upon allegorical and theoretical ideas and that they are theological in nature, not insults. Joe says that graphic and obscene language like this can be used, should be used, when it’s aimed at evil, and when it shakes scales from eyes.
You can watch the rest for yourself, but needless to say, they agree to disagree.
And it left me wondering, why did it take an hour to get nowhere ? Why did it feel like wheels spinning and no new ground turned over ?
Cross my tongue and hope to die, I wonder what it would have taken for them to say :
Hey, you know what, I can see where you’re coming from, even if I disagree, but at what point is it too much ? or too little ?
Like if Gavin just said :
“Joe, you’re right. We are at risk of over-sanitizing our words, and have maybe bought into a structuralist view of language, and maybe we’ve forgotten how to wisely use those sharp words to cut through dark lies.
When do you think it goes too far ? When do you think we should meet people where they’re at and err on the side of charity ? Should we sand down some of the sharp edges in our hyper polarized and sensationalized world ?”
And who knows how Joe would have responded.
And what if Joe said :
“Gavin you’re right. There has been a flippancy in culture, especially in online spaces, around coarse language and the use of profanity; and it is easy to get swept up into the shock and awe of it all. You’re also right that, even if we think we’re using it right, others are looking to us as models for engagement. And you’re right that, at times, it can be hard to bring the right tool to the cultural conversation.
When do you think we should be using coarse language ? Why do you think people shy away from engaging ? And when do you think we are responsible for the actions of people who follow us ?”
And my guess is that is where the wheels might have stopped spinning and we might have ended up in a place where online dialogues become less about defending our team and more about wisdom and discernment. There might have been mutual light shone on the nuances of wisdom. But, I don’t think that happened; new light, I mean.
My broad read is that Gavin will probably always tend towards caution, and Joe will probably always tend towards confrontation. Maybe for better and for worse. Maybe that’s the difference in their calling, maybe that’s their wisdom and discernment being expressed in their unique contexts. Maybe they have a different read on inflective language, or what loving with language means.
Maybe.
Or, maybe, it’s the subtext of that dialogue :
Sin.
Maybe Gavin is a bit too kind; a coward, in Joe’s parlance.
And maybe Joe is a jackass; too harsh, in Gavin’s parlance.
I don’t know.
6. In a Tongue-Shell
Like I said, our words are sacramental.
And so much of our use of language depends upon maturity and holiness.
If you want me to tell you that it’s okay to drop F-bombs or join in with your sailor buddies and cuss the paper of the walls, too bad.
And if you want to slap the wrists or put Holy Soap in the mouths of every Tom, Dick, or Sally that uses a four-letter-word, well, you’re outta luck, Jim.
I think you should be wise and I think you should be holy. Cuss if you want, if you can stand before the Good Lord and say, yeah, that made sense. I’m no prude, and, if you have read any of my stuff, I am not averse to harsh language.
What I am averse to is sin.
That’s a four-letter word these days, huh.
If our language is sacramental, that means it is oriented towards grace and healing, and sometimes calling bullshit is just what the doctor ordered. Other times, kindness and grace and gentleness are the prescription.
Words are signs meant to participate in in the Truth; and because of that, words can re-form us and de-form us. And I think, that means, for cultural dialogues, shock language is primarily aimed at healing. Our goals are to expose evil, not express our hatred and contempt. We want to aim primarily at the disease — that’s how you heal. Harsh language isn’t chemotherapy that poisons the whole in the hopes the Good outlives the Bad. Harsh language is a scalpel, cutting out the cancers.
My guess is we would all do pretty well to keep our tongues in check and be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.
Every Day Saints is a torchlight searching for the quiet miracles, the beautifully human stories and ideas that exist all around us. And it is a place to dialogue, not Holy Ground, but still a place of gathering.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/12/07/cussing-christians-why-im-with-mark-driscoll-on-this-one/
There are manuals about the duty, not pleasure, of hanky panky — and this is where women were encouraged Lie back and think of the Queen.
Yeah, this is my tip of the hat nod to scrupulosity
I dnt have the space to work through it all here, but if you want more, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3109.htm
This is the correspondence view of truth
https://web.archive.org/web/20200918200300/https://paulmaxwell.co/a-biblical-approach-to-swearing-clean/
His blog where he calls false women teachers the c-word : https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/that-lutheran-jezebel-lady.html
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/laws-of-attraction.html The context of these letters is creepy, and talking about appendages to a niece is insane.
Weird because it’s kind of a lame to work through the nuances of a pretty complex philosophical and theological debate. It’d be like a catholic confronting some protestant who thinks it’s okay to celebrate communion with pop and pizza. Maybe there’s room for that on a pure memorialist view, but, it sours the whole conversation.
It seems what you’re really circling here is not profanity itself, but the way Christians often trade discernment for performance. One group signals holiness by silence, another signals freedom by noise, both using language as costume rather than sacrament. Yet words, as you’ve drawn out, are not costumes at all but thresholds, little sacraments that reveal the depth of our loves and train us toward wisdom or folly. Perhaps the real profanity is not in the syllables we utter, but in the shallowness with which we wield them.
If words can be both mirror and invitation, showing us who we are while summoning us toward who we might become, then isn’t the truer question not whether we should swear, but whether our speech carries the weight of reality, or merely the weight of our performance?
Knocked this one out of the park my man.
Also 'small breastfed biddies' is not the hill I would choose to die on. Why is it always the stupidest, creepiest stuff that Christians get caught up in?