The editors of Patrol Magazine, an online journal for hipster evangelicals, recently offered a broadside against those evangelicals like Brett McCracken and the Southern Baptists who remain cautious about throwing off their prudish heritage and embracing the liberating and enlightened state of those Christians who engage in . . . profanity.
There’s no doubt that those suddenly addressing the “issue” of Christian swearing have missed the cultural train. What David Bazan arguably started with his potty-mouthed lyrics has been fully realized as younger Christians have thrown off the church’s traditional linguistic taboos with nearly as much fervor as they have embraced alcohol and rejected partisan politics. Considering how widespread and essentially non-controversial Christian swearing has become in the past decade, even in the Bible Belt, it is surprising that a Christian musician only now had to battle with a record label over a lyrical obscenity.
The irony of their critique is that McCracken’s piece was published by Relevant Magazine, the editor of which was originally tapped to pray at Barack Obama’s inauguration and has openly rejected partisan politics. If there is one evangelical magazine that has not missed the cultural train, it’s Relevant.
The editorial continues:
No, the obscenities now uttered by young Christians have transcended the milquetoast rebellion of the “emergent” movement and are likely here to stay. They have arisen as peripheral indicators of a whole new level of intellectual openness, and an almost masochistic devotion to honestly sorting through the horrors of our time. With young Christians in unblinking pursuit of the big questions, it’s hardly a surprise to find them uninterested in who is saying [s**t] or what corporate behemoth is gifting funds to gay rights. In an adult world of strong ideas and strong language, puerile fixations on “bad words” and partisan allegiances are no longer even part of their consciousness.
The attempt to justify swearing on grounds that we have ascended to “big questions” is both facile and pretentious. It ignores the fact that somehow the Victorians—not to mention many of our parents—managed to ask big questions without stooping to use profanity. And while Patrol thinks that critiquing corporate behemoths for funding gay rights is beneath them, their suppression of piracy is worthy of judgment. Never mind that disparaging traditional evangelical efforts to vote with their dollars undermines the case for ‘protest stealing’ that Sessions argues for in the case of piracy. Intellectual consistency be—dare I say it?—damned.
All this reminds me of Biola professor John Mark Reynolds’ response to an essay I wrote about the new evangelicalism that Patrol Magazine exemplifies. Writes Reynolds:
Anderson is right that young Evangelicals are intent on outer signs, and that they are not culturally clueless or “fundamentalists.” What he is wrong to think is that there is anything new in this. It is hard to expect much different when the head of an Evangelical arts program, about my age but dressing younger, can tell me that a goal of his program is to let the “kids know it is o.k. for Christians to say ‘bastard.’” I remember thinking at the time that it might be more useful to have a program in the arts reminding students that it was okay for a Christian not to say ‘bastard.’
I suspect that Reynolds would agree that jumping on the “cultural train” is a sure way toward cultural captivity, popularity, and Christian impotence. Regardless, the editors attempt to justify swearing as grounded in a better way of intellectual life (ironically) undercuts the possibility of thinking about swearing and its implications, which I suppose is why the article is suspiciously light on arguments. Some “weighty” reasons for swearing are mentioned, but never articulated or even linked to. But then, that’s not Patrol‘s point: Patrol wants us to ignore the question of swearing altogether and simply accept the fact that all the kids are doing it. This is, however, a rather impoverished view on Christianity’s offering the world on the question of language and its appropriate uses.
Despite Patrol‘s best efforts, I suspect that swearing will (rightly) remain a question worth considering along all the other questions of evangelical ethics, for it is a question of our speech to each other and to the world. I will make no attempt to answer it one way or another here, but will instead close with Karl Barth’s devastating critique of Christian freedom for its own sake:
The strength of the strong is confronted by an iron barrier. We now stand before the krisis of what we think to be our freedom, of the freedom in which we rejoice as our good. But it is good only when it is the freedom of the Kingdom of God. Do we understand this? Is our freedom nothing but the freedom which God takes to Himself in our doing or in our not doing? Or is it a freedom which we take to ourselves in His name? Or do we perceive that our freedom is important only when it demonstrates His freedom? Or do we suppose our freedom to be in itself important? In displaying our strength, are we anxious that—righteousness and peace and joy should be made known unto men? Or are we, in fact, in the end concerned with—eating and drinking?
September 18th, 2009 | 10:28 am
In many cases, it seems swearing has become a general intensifier. Lacking the vocabulary or verbal finesse to raise the intellectual and emotional level of a discussion, students, including Christian students, simply swear in the attempt to make what they are saying more powerful or more persuasive or simply more “real” to the listeners.
In other words, the “new swearing” could be another symptom of the decay of intellectual firepower and its corresponding lack of imagination. If one cannot generate the frisson of actual thought, the frisson of “transgression” might have to do.
September 18th, 2009 | 11:28 am
John Mark Reynolds is right to describe this sort of thing as an aestheticism of sorts. Like the fundamentalists and evangelicals of yore, emergents and young evangelicals have established ‘signs’ that one is ‘in’; unfortunately, serious doctrinal foundations or ethical behavior don’t seem to be among these. Actual intellectual argument is usually totally off the radar screen. If you are not one of us, pray for us; we need it.
September 18th, 2009 | 12:12 pm
I liked the piece, although it seems to me that the New Evangelicals are just a natural reaction to the Old Evangelicals who were, in turn, a reaction to secularization. Hopefully, it will work towards the good.
That said, I have to seethe about the Barth quote a bit. Why can’t the freedom to do otherwise and the freedom to do good both be intrinsically good? Why is the freedom to do otherwise only good as an instrumental means towards doing good? Why can’t it be a mixed means, good in itself and good for something further?
I think Christians become dangerously authoritarian when they claim, as Barth is, that freedom is only good when it is used for the good. Being free to do otherwise is good because it means no one is exercising their authority over you, because they are treating you with respect. That’s a GREAT good!
I get similarly annoyed when Popes say this stuff too. This view of freedom only being good when it leads to the good led to the old “error has no rights” totalitarianism. So we must be careful.
September 18th, 2009 | 2:23 pm
Wouldn’t it be helpful to distinguish swearing and profanity from coarse language? My beliefs about the casual abuse of God’s name are different than my opinion about the use of s**t and its ilk.
September 18th, 2009 | 5:04 pm
Certainly a subject of some interest, but what of the profanity of “Christian-ese” with it’s deep ties to materialism and commercialism. Such phrases and slogans that adorn “Jesus-junk” and fill the shelves of “Christian” bookstores are exactly the sort of profanity that requires young believers to distance themselves (via language) from what Christendom at large puts forth as “Gospel”. For many it is pragmatic and a way of “signing” quickly that they are not “those kind” of Christians…you know the ones who depict Jesus as loving war, greed, being a member of the NRA and being self-righteous bigots. In the interest of time and effort it may separate me from guys like Pat Robertson of pastor Hagee a lot faster with a simple “f-bomb” than trying to spend hours going over why their views are unbiblical.
September 18th, 2009 | 6:37 pm
I highly disagree with the first commenter. Just because a person uses an f-bomb doesn’t mean they lack in intelligence or vocabulary. Language like this is an intensifier, but that isn’t always a bad thing. It is by no way an indicator of brain power.
And yes, there is a huge difference between a bad word and using the Lord’s name in vain. I have a lot of friends who say “bad words,” but I flinch 100 times more when my mother says something about God’s name casually. In my mind, the two are totally different. Also, bad words change from generation to generation (though that will cause a lot of you to cry heresy, I’m sure), so there is going to be some shift.
September 18th, 2009 | 7:05 pm
Why are we spending so much time worrying about how other Christians are acting out their Christianity, seriously? Mr. Anderson has no real evidence as to the condition of Mr. Sessions’ heart, relationship with God, or how he chooses to love other people, (or vice-versa), which are infinitely more important than his stance on swearing. All this back and forth takes focus away from the things that really matter—being united in Christ as one body and showing His love to others.
September 18th, 2009 | 9:25 pm
There’s a whole Christian sub-culture, especially among (post)evangelical college students, who Patrol magazine portrays so well.
They were Christian leaders in high school, deeply emerged in the generic, evangelical lifestyle. But upon going to college, they are starting to see that the emperor has no clothes. In their typical collegiate rebellion against authorities, they have created a subculture. Many are frankly agnostic in their faith, thus they try the things that evangelicalism told them would lead them straight into a life of sin and destruction, and they end up saying, “Hey, that wasn’t so bad.” Of course, they’re afraid to admit that they are really agnostics, without any serious faith, so they hide behind the open admissions of agnosticism in former evangelical sub-cultural icons such as David Bazan.
The problem (with Bazan as well as the subculture that Patrol represents), is that many become so involved that they end their progression. The internet has allowed them to sequester themselves into their own community, whereas those challenged with this (typical) stage of life used to be forced to interact with the general community. Thus, without the proper community, many simply become “spiritual, but not religious.” Their faith never progresses beyond the typical collegiate questioning and doubt.
September 18th, 2009 | 9:39 pm
“Just because a person uses an f-bomb doesn’t mean they lack in intelligence or vocabulary.”
Well, you’re right. Not always. Just 90-95 percent of the time.
Also the lack of civility ties in.
However, I blame parents, mostly. A funny true story: I overheard a young female outside my office heatedly monologuing on her cell phone. Imagine every possible grammatical twist on the word under consideration, used roughly every two seconds or less. (About 90 seconds worth.)
The thought had just entered my head, “I’ll bet your mother is proud of you,” when she signed off: “So tell that * that he can *ing go * himself, ’cause he sure as * ain’t *ing getting any *ing money off me. Bye, Mom.”
September 19th, 2009 | 10:07 am
Steve,
You put Reynolds’ (and my!) critique very well.
Selfreferencing,
Great points about the Barth quote, and duly noted. I think I could agree that freedom is both for its own sake AND for the sake of doing good, but I am with Barth that if the latter condition doesn’t obtain, then freedom ceases to be a good. In some sense, this is authoritarian, but not necessarily papal authority. For freedom to remain a good, it has to be bounded by the authority of Jesus (however we work that out), if it is truly to be a the freedom that comes from being a citizen in the Kingdom of God. Does that make sense?
Mac,
Interesting and provocative thoughts. I’m moved by that argument. But then, my point wasn’t to defend or critique Christian swearing per se, but rather to defend the possibility of having a conversation about it…so I’m off the hook on that one! : )
Sandra,
No, I don’t know David’s heart. But I wasn’t critiquing his heart, either, as much as I was responding to his article. I suspect that if I ever have the chance to meet him in person, we would get along quite well, as I like many of the things Patrol is doing and saying. However, when it comes to preserving the public witness of the Gospel, the intentions of the heart aren’t sufficient–we have to evaluate actions, too, and this is where the conversation matters (I think).
Thanks, all, for the many comments and feedback. They are much appreciated.
Best,
Matt
September 19th, 2009 | 10:36 am
Re Mac’s comment: When I lived in Utah, I knew more than one person who had taken up smoking as an instantaneous and public “sign” that they weren’t Mormons — something that would be obvious at a glance as they were walking down the street. Whether smoking is intrinsically “sinful” is similarly up for grabs, depending on how meticulously you interpret the “temple of the Holy Spirit” business. But the person indulging in that outward sign would, I think, need to weigh the value of the sign against the damage it might do to his own body, if nothing else. Maybe it’s worth it; maybe it’s not.
As one who used to swear like a sailorette, and stopped, to me the issue is one of obedience. I really don’t care what “kind” of Christian people think I am — I can’t control the connections that happen in other people’s minds. What I can control is my own behavior and speech. And it seems worth it to me to submit my speech to a standard beyond the standards of the culture, for the sake of cultivating in myself a habit of obedience, if nothing else. If I’m dependent on the mainstream culture’s linguistic currency for my “intensifiers,” then, well, I just sound like everyone else, don’t I, and in ways that I don’t think signal that I’m necessarily “genuine,” or “being real,” or whatever the buzzwords are. There my actions have to speak for me, one way or the other. In the meantime, it’s incumbent upon me to weigh the value of the outward effects of my language against its possibly corrosive effects on my own soul.
Of course, all this may be moot, as I’m neither evangelical nor all that young any more. It is worth considering, however, if you subscribe to this particular “freedom” and don’t have children yet, the impact that indulging this freedom will have when you do have children. Your liberties begin to sound pretty indicting when they issue from your toddler’s lips.
September 19th, 2009 | 11:07 pm
Citing the Victorians as a model of intellectual openness? Wow. Maybe we’re better off letting foul-mouthed Christians do the outreach.
September 20th, 2009 | 4:34 pm
Steve S,
Ah, well, I cited the Victorians as people who managed to ask the “big questions” (what a useful phrase, that!). Apparently, I didn’t realize it was so uncouth and unrespectable to be a fan of the Victorian period.
Sally,
“Your liberties begin to sound pretty indicting when they issue from your toddler’s lips.”
As someone who is young, evangelical, and (for now!) without children, I think this is extremely wise and forward thinking advice that many of my peers (including me) forget. Thanks.
Matt
September 20th, 2009 | 11:16 pm
Profanity definitely has an effect on the way one is perceived by nonbelievers. Don’t use it and they’ll respect that, but many of them are unlikely to open up and really discuss what’s going on in their lives.
I’m one of the several…whatever you call us…who was raised in a traditional conservative home, went to Christian college and then realized “what the heck?” (Saying “heck” was a big step for me, I’m sure many of you can relate)
Since then, I’ve swung the pendulum and offended my own sensibilities, not to mention my mother’s. The conclusion I’ve come to is this: cussing is not inherently evil. There is a time and a place for it; quite honestly, if I use a word, I mean it. It’s not just a flippant placeholder. Conversations with people who drop a bomb every other word are inane and difficult to sit through for very long. But, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve found that I have a better chance of actually getting to know a person when they know that I’m not squeamish about language. It’s communication. If you view and use it as such with the correct attitude, a lot of good can be found.
(on the whole kid issue . . . yeah, I’ve thought of that and that was one of the reasons for me coming off the pendulum. I don’t have kids, but my friends do. Their vocabularies don’t need to expand that far yet)
September 21st, 2009 | 6:58 pm
Doesn’t this all come down to the attitude of the cusser or non-cusser, whether or not any “judging” is going on?
For instance, does the non-cussing Christian judge the cussing Christian for their cussing, ultimately doubting their salvation and faith? Likewise, does a cussing Christian look upon a non-cussing Christian with their own sort of disdain, perhaps with an attitude that speech “worldliness” makes them more appealing to non-believers. It seems to me we Christians shouldn’t be poking each other with issues like this, “Hey, you curse, you must not really be a Christian” or “Hey, you don’t curse, you self-righteous a**hole, and you’ll never reach the people I can reach.”
That said (and hoping not to sound judgmental), I think it’s a bit misguided for someone to put forward an argument that a “cursing Christian” might be some sort of outreach to non-believers who curse. To me, that’s like a Christian saying, “I smoke marijuana in order to reach out to drug dealers.” If the cursing comes out in language as a “slip up,” I can accept that a lot more readily than a Christian saying “I will continue to curse and use profanity as a way to reach people like that.” Seems like “sinning” to reach the sinners is not what Jesus came to do, nor what he asks us to do.
September 22nd, 2009 | 12:51 am
[...] Muslim Punk; or, Young Evangelicals Not Only Ones Being Real [...]
September 27th, 2009 | 6:15 pm
The New Chief End of Man: Glorify whatever is lowbrow and enjoy it forever.
October 16th, 2009 | 8:56 pm
Your closing quote is self-indicting. Barth criticizes making such a petty thing into an issue, which Patrol has declared it is not. You, on the other hand, have just spent an entire article attempting to bring it back into the realm of ‘issue.’ This is Patrol has said, this is not an issue. We’ve moved beyond the pretension that a certain combination of letters actually has an effect on one’s moral character.
If Jesus were to come back today, and He were to speak modern English, I’d be willing to bet he would use a lot of words that most Christians would find ‘offensive.’ Whether one chooses to “swear” or not, the words they use have little to do with how they speak.
October 21st, 2009 | 10:43 pm
As a younger christian who (sometimes) swears, I would like to offer the following defense:
My generation sees the prohibitions on drinking and swearing in the same way we see the crusade against popular music or going to the movies. Ultimately, we see it as a non-essential judgment based on an older generation’s views. Now, if I chose not to drink or swear that’s fine, and many in my circle chose not to. The point is that we want to be able to have a glass of wine and hold our heads high in the church. We want freedom from the judgements of others, which are not based on biblical teaching, but on personal preference. It is my experience that most young christians who swear do not accept using the Lord’s name in vain, and generally refrain from insulting someone with that language. Yes, it may not be the /best/ thing for a christian to do, but my generation sees greater sins in the established church’s inability to engage meaningfully with the LGBT community, or the addiction of evangelicalism to partisan politics and “left-behind” eschatology. Essentially, the young christians of my generation are tired of empty, vain orthodoxy. We see a cup of cold water as more meaningful than a creed. We’d rather have people drink and swear than gossip and exclude.
When it comes down to it, we hear the shrill voices bemoaning our “… sure way toward cultural captivity, popularity, and Christian impotence”. The church of the future does not care for political power, it does not care to be the authority on ‘family values’. We want to be a refuge in a senseless, violent world, a place where those in need can be provided for, materially and spiritually.
We don’t want to fight the culture war.
November 8th, 2009 | 9:13 pm
It seems as though there is movement that focuses much more on enlightenment than dogma. But until we all learn to move past the labels, i.e. postmodern christian and hipster evangelicals (which I find particularly amusing), we may continue to find ourselves snagged on the path to a higher state of mind. These words, much like the swears in question, can act as barriers and branches on the path if you let them. Divisions in the church are likely going to hang around for a while much like the issue of whether or not swearing is inappropriate. I feel that the issue that Patrol is trying to address is one far more serious than “potty mouth”. It is hypocrisy.
The article sites David Bazan’s lyrics as an example of this swearing phenomena among Christians, but the real problem is all these kids heard him say the f-word and now aren’t sure whether or not it is wrong for them to say it as well. He shook their believe system by being honest with himself. He is an influential artist, but not the standard for what a “christian” should be.
Meanwhile the so called evangelical faction of the American political system is sponsored and followed by the same hate-mongering network that brings you Family Guy and The Simpsons. That seems like a bit of a contradiction. And the “kids” are taking the grown-ups to tasks on there inconsistencies. So if they use the f-word, and it gets some attention, great. That is how they feel. If they lack the vocabulary to emote in a less controversial manner, who cares. There aren’t that many Mark Twains running around these days. If the king james bible is the standard then why don’t all the grown-ups who have it all figured out get together, squash the whole denomination thing, and have one church. Oh, that’s what I thought.
In the words of the great Bazan himself, “if all that’s left is duty i’m falling on my sword.”
Basically,”because I said so” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact