In the past year there has been no shortage in controversy amongst evangelicals about language and particularly the issue of obscenity/profanity. And with Derek Webb’s latest announcement that his record’s release is being held up due to a disagreement with his label about a particular song (rumored to contain profanity stronger in nature than that used in his previous works), the discussion has been fired up yet again.
A few thoughts on the issue:
First, it seems there are two exceptionally unhelpful positions that both need to be avoided from the outset. The first is that of the Victorian moralist who seems to have confused God for George Carlin since they think that when the Bible condemns obscenity, God has a list of (at least) seven words that are Absolutely and Always Unacceptable. The second is that of the grunge rocker hipster that seems to think biblical prohibitions on language are simply cultural and we shouldn’t let those cramp our style nowadays - especially since one can just as easily prooftext passages that suggest profanity to be OK. Both positions are unhelpful because both are hopelessly reductionistic.
Second, it might be helpful to reframe the question. Rather than asking “does the Bible allow for profanity?” (to which the only honest answer can be “no”) perhaps we should ask “what does the Bible mean when it speaks of profanity?”
Consider - Paul condemns “unwholesome” words in Ephesians 4. Yet in Philippians 3 he says he considers all his good works to be “skubalon” when compared to the righteousness of Christ. Or consider that in Philippians 4 he exhorts his readers to think only of that which is “pure” but in Galatians tells the Judaizers that, assuming circumcision makes you closer to God, they should just go varsity and castrate themselves. Is Paul contradicting himself? For sake of discussion, we’ll assume that he isn’t. Rather, he’s communicating in a way consistent with biblical expectations of how language should be used.
First, that our language be appropriate given the subject matter. Paul’s language is exceptionally when the issue directly relates to the Gospel. On other matters, he is less severe. In other words, the sharpness of our language should not exceed the gravity of its subject.
Second, that our language be appropriate given the setting. A while ago I read a helpful post by Andrew Jones in which he described different culture’s perceptions of “profanity.” He argued, I think convincingly, that the standards of profanity in the west have changed dramatically in recent years. 500 years ago the western world was overwhelmingly Christian and devoutly religious, therefore language that damned - or suggested that someone was outside the favor of God in some way - was most offensive. The Victorians had different concerns. After all, it was their sexual prudery that gave us the terms “dark meat” and “white meat” (because they’d never dream of saying “leg” or “breast”). So for them any language describing “improper” bodily functions was obscene. This standard has stayed with us to a large extent up through the baby boomers. However, in the past 30 years the standard has changed again. As individuals become more alienated from each other and more isolated in our separate little worlds, language that plays on that basic estragenement or isolation most offends us. Our parents’ generation used the word “retard” with impunity, in ours we have the Campaign to End the R Word.
In both cases, the idea is that a Christian approach to language is not so much about hard and fast rules as it is basic principles of respect for creation (language and people) and, by extension, creator. This makes sense given the fact that Christianity at its nature is most concerned with our hearts.
In other words - the Gospel must shape our thinking about language, just as it should every other area of life.