Skip to content

Look, we’re famous!

May 20, 2006

Hey, my profanity ravings have made a splash in the Reformed blogosphere. I’m a bad pastor, I’ll go stand in the corner now. Check out the May 19th post on

teampyro.blogspot.com

I’m interested in all of your responses, but you must promise not to slander our good Calvinist brothers at teampyro. It’s a great blog, especially when they post long quotes of Spurgeon.

But still, ***paragraph deleted***

Dang, that last paragraph was really witty. And it didn’t have any profanity. But I cut it anyway ’cause I hate blustery blogging. Even when it’s not profane.

Peace and love.

Advertisements
22 Comments leave one →
  1. May 20, 2006 8:23 pm

    Well, I do think he stayed pretty simple in his definitions, and in his defense of his position.

    I am not sure I came up with anything brilliant, but I don’t think what he said about the Ephesians verses holds up. I think they are more complicated than that, although the application may actually be very simple, per our discussion in Profanity part 2.

    While Gorfchild was out of town last week, I spent a few hours on this site becoming aware of this particular portion of the reformed blogosphere. We certainly have nothing to be ashamed of here. Come out of the corner, Isaiah543! *smile*

  2. May 22, 2006 3:02 pm

    I’m not seeing any reference to your raving at teampyro.

  3. May 23, 2006 10:25 am

    I just don’t understand how the nay-sayer’s position is tenable.

    I think it’s indisputable that the issue is subjective, and completely dependent on the sensitivities of the potentially offended. This means that I have to exercise discernment and try to gauge my audience. I’ll make mistakes, certainly, but I’m also certain that the offense is unavoidable. I’ve offended people because they heard something other than what I said! Or because I used a word that, in their sub-culture (with which I’m unfamiliar), is offensive. Some people are offended by my highfalutin language. Or there;s my friend who is unoffendable by any single word, but I could easily string a few “good” words together that would offend and hurt him deeply.

    Teampyro acknowledges this, and that’s good. And yet they advocate simplistic non-discerning rules that “have an appearance of wisdom … but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” I grew up in a church that said “no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no dancing, no movies”. And while some in the church acknowledged that these were “just guidelines”, many openly described them as sin. I see And while there is some wisdom in not trying to “walk the line” and fleeing from sin, I’m far more afraid of slipping over into legalism than slipping into the abuse of my freedoms.

    Where do they get off making absolute rules (never use a word that has ever been known to offend a human being) where none exist in scripture? I think they’re doing a bang up job promoting slavery.

    It’s not about the meanings. While some would say that we shouldn’t use sexual language (as I did above), they’re wrong. I *should* use sexual language with my wife. And some would use the same “sexual” argument to ban the words “suck” or “blow”, completely ignoring that fact that these words are perfectly acceptable in most contexts and don’t even make sense as sexual language. And while f* is viewed by many as never having an acceptable use, it doesn’t usually have a sexual meaning. “motherf*” does not refer to incest any more than “son of a b*” implies ones canine heritage.

    It’s not even about words. If I pass gas on an elevator, someone is sure to be offended. Was it the sound? Or the odor? Or my motivation? Or my slovenly lack of decorum?

    It’s about the heart.

  4. May 23, 2006 10:31 am

    I once heard a sermon that, while full of a variety of heresy, did have one good thing to commend it. It argued that one of the ways that Christians render themselves “salt-free” is being offended by things.

    I found myself sorely tempted to shout out “WTF!” and provide the instant application. I’m still not certain that it was best not to speak out, but I’m sure my mother in law appreciate my restraint in her new church. (Though I think she would appreciate my point.)

  5. May 23, 2006 10:57 am

    Mathuaer wrote:

    “And while there is some wisdom in not trying to “walk the line” and fleeing from sin, I’m far more afraid of slipping over into legalism than slipping into the abuse of my freedoms.”

    YES! YES! That’s it! Hallelujah and Amen! The stuffed parrot drops from the ceiling and announces that you win the comment of the week award. What kind of beer do you want?

  6. May 23, 2006 11:03 am

    Dragon’s Milk!

  7. May 23, 2006 11:04 am

    Though I have to admit, I specifically remembered your sermon wherein you commented that you believe that more souls have been damned (oops, bad word) by legalism than alchoholism.

  8. May 23, 2006 11:06 am

    Alright then, we’ll split the beer. :-)

  9. May 23, 2006 11:13 am

    I love this blog….

  10. May 23, 2006 11:49 am

    This isn’t worth another post, but one of the other bloggers out there confidently asserted w/o evidence that Paul never said anything stronger than manure. The point is debatable, but not so simply assertable.

    Here’s the BAGD lexicon entry for the word “skubala” in Philippians 3.8. Again, due to font limitations, and abbreviations unintelligible to most, I’m editing and cleaning it up some.

    useless or undesirable material that is subject to disposal, refuse, garbage (in var. senses, ‘excrement, manure, garbage, kitchen scraps’:

    specif. of human excrement:

    consider everything garbage/crud Phil 3:8 (“to convey the crudity of the Greek … : ‘It’s all crap’.”)

  11. May 23, 2006 1:46 pm

    Manure is bad enough; it shouldn’t be discussed in polite conversation.

  12. May 23, 2006 7:32 pm

    Matt said:

    I grew up in a church that said “no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no dancing, no movies”. And while some in the church acknowledged that these were “just guidelines”, many openly described them as sin.

    I know you meant the guidlines described sinful activities, but the layout is true…producing extrabiblical laws on our conduct presented as God’s commands is sin!

    I wish I was in on this conversation during the heat of it.

  13. May 23, 2006 11:51 pm

    alright, so I finally did it and posted something on the teampyro site. Here it is…

    What really has befuddled me today is the magnitude of the outrage about a pastor using a potty word. Have you nothing else more pressing to be passionate about?

    Perhaps, against all reason, the “profanity never” crowd turns out to be right. Still can’t we all agree that there are many sins of the tongue worse than using potty words? slander, gossip, cursing people, satanically serving the Accuser by calling pastors who cuss “slaves”…

    And yet these high crimes of the tongue are regularly indulged in the reformed blogsphere.

    And yet little outrage by comparison. 170 comments on challies blog, 75 comments here. What monster have we awakened? Is it that it’s fun to call cussing pastors sinners because cussing is the one sin of the tongue that is relatively easy to control and so we feel the sinful pleasure of moral superiority? Or is it that we easily gain the praise of men when we stand up for the current culture’s definitions of decency. I’m just wondering and hoping you are too…

  14. May 24, 2006 12:41 am

    Contrary to all sound judgment, I surfed out on the big bad internet to see what the other blogs were saying about our discussion. You know, the blogs written by guys in Seattle with celtic crosses tatooed on their calves. Here’s a comment I liked. Warning, no blanket endorsements here, I have no idea who these people are or what they believe about Christology or soteriology, but I like this…

    http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/
    2006/05/21/0941270.html

  15. May 24, 2006 12:48 am

    OK, I have a tiny bit better idea now about what they believe about Christology and soteriology, and it’s probably groovy. I mean hey, they link to monergism.com!

  16. May 24, 2006 1:38 am

    This post has been removed by the author.

  17. May 24, 2006 6:06 am

    Mike,

    There have been many a fued between the two groups of BHT and Pyros, and fortunately the overblown fruit of some of the disputes were captured in the pyromaniac’s comic book covers. If you haven’t seen them, check them out on the old pyromaniac blog. A little search should come up with whatcha need.

  18. May 24, 2006 8:57 am

    By the way, CEFC veterans, you may be interested to know that movie man Todd in Seattle sometimes goes to Mark Driscoll’s church on Sunday nights when he’s feelin’ saucy.

  19. May 24, 2006 12:28 pm

    What really has befuddled me is the magnitude of the outrage about a pastor using a potty word. Have they nothing else more pressing to be passionate about?

    Perhaps, against all reason, the “profanity never” crowd turns out to be right. Still can’t we all agree that there are many sins of the tongue worse than using potty words? slander, gossip, cursing people, satanically serving the Accuser by calling pastors who cuss “slaves”…

    And yet these high crimes of the tongue are regularly indulged in the reformed blogosphere.

    And yet there is little outrage by comparison. 170+ comments on challies blog, 75+ comments on teampyro. What monster have we awakened? Is it that it’s fun to call cussing pastors sinners because cussing is the one sin of the tongue that is relatively easy to control and so we feel the sinful pleasure of moral superiority? Or is it that we easily gain the praise of men when we stand up for the current culture’s definitions of decency? Or what is it?

  20. May 24, 2006 2:34 pm

    Denied!

    Sad that they can’t see that the issue is even more insignificant if you’re talking about laypeople cussing. Or are they not even talking about cussing?

  21. May 24, 2006 2:38 pm

    I’d post something to that effect, but it seems so obvious that I have no expectation the effect would be positive.

  22. May 30, 2006 8:31 am

    The poopstorm over Mark Driscoll’s potty mouth continues…

    http://www.calvinistgadfly.com/?p=243#comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: