HOME | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | SUBMIT CONTENT | CONTACT US


Email Newsletter  

Each Monday Morning, we'll send you the newest church leadership headlines straight to your in-box! It's all free and you can unsubscribe at any time! Join over 12,000 other pastors who receive MMI updates each week! We respect your privacy.

image

Today’s Buzz:  Chuck Swindoll Redux, Hong Kong, and Foreskins…

A big day at MMI yesterday... quite a lot of discussion on the Chuck Swindoll report. Today, I'll debrief a little on that story, and we'll talk about vulgarity, Hong Kong, and foreskins. That's quite the combination!

Chuck Swindoll:  Dirty Old Man?
Wow… never thought I’d get blasted so hard for sticking up for Chuck Swindoll.  Yesterday’s post on VCY Radio Network dropping Chuck’s Insight for Living broadcast from their group of stations brought the ire of none other than Slice of Laodicea and Ingrid herself.  Her follow-up post made it sound like I approve of every other word being a swear word… that that’s my practice… and I’m on a soapbox to get every Christian to do it.  In reality, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.

In fact, I almost changed MMI’s byline to “a textbook case of what’s wrong with the New Pastors” as Slice now calls us.

The issue (for me) isn’t whether crude and course talk is wrong.  Scripture certainly advises us to use discretion in our language.  The question is where that line should be drawn… what is acceptable and what isn’t.  The issue is not whether we should be crude or not; but rather what ‘crude’ really is.  The definition of crudeness really does come down to culture somewhat.  (And I’m not saying that the Bible does not have it’s standards… it does).  Yes, I believe that crudeness changes over the decades… what was acceptable at one time might not be acceptable today; and vice versa. Things like buns and heck may have seemed crude in the 1950s, but they do not now to anyone unless they are still taking their cues from Ozzie and Harriett.  The word ‘sucks’ when I was growing up meant something totally different than it does today.  Today it’s just an expression with no sexual connotations.

You see, when we judge people ONLY on some of the words that they use, we become the word police.  (The same goes with any other legalistic rule). We only associate with people who talk just like us (because we’re right and they’re wrong) even if they hold to the basic tenets of the faith.

And it’s not just words that have changed.  Here are some examples of how things have changed in our culture:

1.  In many circles, it was forbidden to go to movies at all.  Now many draw the line with R rated movies.  (The shift has gone from not being seen entering a ‘movie house’ to just not going to a ‘bad movie’.) I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing; just that I don’t know of anyone, even very conservative Christians, that hold that you can go to a theatre anymore.  I’m sure there are some still out there.

2.  When I was growing up, many people did not shop or even eat out on Sunday.  That was considered SIN.  Sunday was the day everyone should take off.  Now, it’s the older saints that get together after church on Sunday for the lunch buffet.  Why?  Because it is now culturally acceptable.  Eating out on Sunday is no more sinful now than it was in 1950, but times have changed.

3.  How about eating or shopping in a place that sold alcohol?  Same thing.  Some people would NEVER be seen in a place that had a bar (or would only eat in the restaurant section).  Those people now love Applebee’s and Cheddars.

So culture does affect what is acceptable and what is unacceptable to some extent whether we like it or not.

It’s affected the more liberal (in theology) as well.  Yesterday’s article on the transgender pastor is a great example.

So… you can see… I’m not always saying that this is a good thing.

But in the gray areas, there must be some grace put into the equation.  Otherwise, you have fat preachers yelling at people for swearing (when they themselves are 200 pounds overweight); or in extreme cases, people carrying “God Hates Fags” signs.

Those of you who read my writings often hear me call for balance.  This area is another prime example.  Some of what’s happening in today’s church bothers me as well.  There are times when people push the line too far.  There are other times when others play it too safe.  My perspective is… let’s hold people up to the basics of scripture; let’s keep the main thing the main thing; let’s encourage and exhort one another rather than tear down and judge (unless that’s necessary); and let’s try to find the proper balance between a life full of liberty and one full of legalism.

In Chuck Swindoll’s case; Chuck has not changed his mind on any basic issues of the faith.  And an important thing to remember here is that he did not offend ONE person outside of the Kingdom.  The only people who took offense were Christians.  When this happens, I think we need a reality check.  I heard nothing from Chuck that would cause me to ‘break fellowship’ with him. 

I’m sure I’ll write more about this at some point in the future.  I have many questions and few answers (although I’ve been getting alot of advice… including an email this morning with a ‘word from the Lord’.  That one word?  “REPENT!”

Chuck Swindoll’s Newest Book
In an ironic twist of fate, if you’d like to pick up Chuck’s newest book, you can purchase it from the VCY Radio Network Online Bookstore here.  Interestingly enough, the book is entitled “The Strength of Character” and is a featured item this month at VCY.

Yesterday’s Traffic Drivers
On the bright side, I think MMI was the only website in the world to have the most referrers from SliceofLaodicea.com AND ChurchMarketingSucks.com yesterday.  For some reason, I find that kind of humorous.

2,041 Complaints that the BIBLE is Vulgar
In Hong Kong recently, over 2000 people registered complaints that the Bible is vulgar and indecent.  The Television and Licensing Authority in Hong Kong rejected the claim.  If the Bible had been reclassified as “indecent,” it would have been forced to be wrapped in a statutory warning notice and minors under 18 would not be able to purchase a copy of the Scripture.  More here...

100 Foreskins for Your Daughter
One more thing on this.  (And I’m glad Chuck didn’t share this story).  Do you remember the story in the Old Testament how David wanted to marry Saul’s Daughter.  Of course, Saul hates David, and wants to do him in.  But his daughter absolutely adores David (and David likes her too).  So, Saul comes up with a foolproof plan.  He tells David that he can have his daughter’s hand in marriage… all he has to do is bring the King 100 Philistine penis tips.  (Surely, one of these semi-upset Philistines will kill David before they let him… well… you know. 

So, what does David do?  He goes out and slaughters 200 (not 100!) Philistines.  David decides to ‘play it safe’.  He brings the king 200 Philistine foreskins.

A sidenote… can you imagine?  Scripture says that David himself brought all the booty to the King.  Can you imagine the scene?  Saul and David sitting at a table.  David’s counting (with a big smile on his face):  197.... 198.... 199.... 200.

Check out I Samuel 18.  (Here’s a link to the KING JAMES version)

Now that, my friend is vulgar.  At least my 9 year old daughter thought so as we were working our way through I Samuel.

OK… enough for today.

I’d love to hear your comments!

Have a great day!

PS—You KNOW that David had to share that story with everyone he met for the rest of his life.  And I think he may have even embellished it a little as he told it.  (I’m just guessing here).

- - - - - - - - - -



This post has been viewed 2242 times and was added on May 30, 2007 by Todd Rhoades.
Filed under: Miscellaneous  Personal Items from Todd  
Share this post with a friend right now!
View reactions to this post at other blogs...

You can really help us out by subscribing to our free RSS feed with your favorite feed reader, or here at Bloglines. Also, you can add us to your favorites at Technorati.


It's easy...
Link to this URL


Like this article? Get our free weekly email newsletter for more great resources just like this...  



- - - - - - - - - -
  There are 97 Comments:
  • Posted by

    That whole post was just excellent, Todd. The Bible is not vulgar--just real. All the sex and violence--and our loving God calling His beloved Israel a “wh*re"--reflect that it is an honest revelation about holiness and sinners.

  • Posted by Daniel

    I just hope for the philistines’ sake that David killed them before he circumcized them.  Ouch!  You’re right though Todd, the mental picture of David unloading his 200 newly acquired foreskins is priceless.

  • Nicely done.

  • Posted by Brad Raby

    FYI, The VCY Radio Network website has a brochure on the “Purpose Driven Movement”.  In the brochure they advocate dissention.  Let me qoute directly,

    “What You Can Do? If your church is in the initial stages of change (music or the first 40–day program), your church could be saved by talking other church members, and with activist intervention by 10–20 percent of the membership.”

    There is no mention on going to the leadership first.  I thought it was just us liberals who didn’t use the Bible???

  • Posted by David Trotter

    That’s funny. This week’s “teaching film” at Revolution included the foreskin passage. The question I asked our congregation was…


    “Have you ever thought about what Saul did with all those foreskins? Did he post them on a board, fry them up like onion rings, or what?”

    Seriously, have you ever thought about it? What did he do with them?

    You can watch the film at http://www.revolutionfamily.com

  • Posted by

    Brad,

    Yes… I saw that yesterday.  (That’s a whole other post for a whole other day!)

    They actually advocate ‘activist intervention by 10–20 percent of the membership’.

    Todd

  • Posted by Leonard

    You cannot win with people who are convinced they are right.  All their actions stem from being convinced they are right.  Dialog doesn’t work because dialog is used only to point out where they are right and someone else is wrong.  When you are right your ends justify your means because that is pursuing holiness but when your wrong, well your just wrong.  I would much rather lead my neighbor to Christ than to bicker with the folks at slice.  I believe everything I believe is true but I KNOW that not every thing I believe is correct, that is why I study.  Here is a litmus test for a teachable heart:  when I study, do I study to learn from God or to confirm only what I already believe.  When I get these out of balance I become unteachable.

  • Posted by kent

    With all the issues that desparatrely need our attention in this culture to get our shorts in wad, yes shorts in wad over what Chuck Swindoll has said is a perfect example of why so much of the church has nothing to say to dying world.

    I do not know the constituency that VCY plays to but I guarantee you they are small and irrelevant. If that is waht they have to bringto the table, well let them listen but beyond that let them be. I was going to say broom them, but that is not gracious.

  • Posted by Nathan

    Todd,
    Once again, you have proven that truth and logic win out over hysteria and knee-jerk reactions to what some Christians (as you pointed out, no non-believer was offended) consider offensive. 

    I’m getting a bit sick of preachers having to limit their vocabulary of innocent euphemisms to that of the “approved” words on the Slice crowd’s list.  I wonder when they will realize that they don’t make the rules?

    As always, your post exposed the prudes for what they are.

  • Posted by

    Was VCY involved in the Contempory English Version (CEV) translation of the Bible?

    Because instead of foreskins, the CEV says “All you have to do is to bring back proof that you have killed a hundred Philistines!” Sounds like a change they would have made.

  • Posted by Randy Ehle

    A couple thoughts have come to mind yesterday and today:  First, why is it that a post about Swindoll using crude language inspired more comments from both sides than I’ve seen in some time here at MMI.  (Todd can verify whether my observation is in line with the facts.) I’m pointing the finger at myself here, because I was going to comment, too, but my computer failed me.  Still, if the issue is as much a...well, non-issue...as many of us seemed to suggest, then why bother?  Makes for great blogging, of course, with all the back-and-forth from various viewpoints, but is it something really worth spending our time on?  (signed, Pot, calling you Black!)

    Second thought: I tend to think Mrs. Pilgrim was right on the money yesterday.  Here we are slamming VCY and Slice of Laodicea for voicing their opinions about Swindoll, but aren’t we really doing the same thing?  No, we’re not removing any links to their sites or “actively” censoring them, but look:  In a nutshell, VCY condemned Swindoll for his speech; Ingrid apparently agrees with VCY.  We (again, I include myself for what I would have written) condemned VCY and Ingrid/Slice for their speech.  Perhaps we used less vitriol - we didn’t call their words sin, after all; but nonetheless, aren’t we saying that they’re essentially wrong?  Someone here accused them of promoting dissension for suggesting that church members use a “constitutional” means of guiding a church rather than going to the church leaders.  But by posting that accusation here, aren’t we guilty of bypassing the scriptural principal of going to the offending one privately?

    What’s my point, other than simply trying to be the conscience of MMI for a few minutes?  Well, for starters, we’re all hypocrites in need of grace.  But that doesn’t mean it’s okay to be a hypocrite; after all, we are new creatures who ought not remain enslaved to sin.  Maybe we could focus more on how to advance the kingdom instead of attacking those who (in our opinion) are subverting that advance.  Just some thoughts....

  • Posted by

    I would call all of our attention to the Bible - Which is God’s Word - and judge what VCY did against it and not our personal opinions.

    1. There is a verse that states WIDE is the path that leads to destruction. Narrow is the path that leads to salvation and FEWthere be that find it. I have learned that to be Christian is to often be in the minority. We should all consider that verse.

    2. It is one thing to let slip a bad word. It is quite another to intentionally use one and think it is funny or cute. I personally do not feel the need to swear or use slang to make a point. All I need is a good point. I do not feel the need to be personnaly relevant when teaching Biblical matters. All I need to do is use God’s Word.

    3. There is another verse in the Bible that talks about how a little leaven..... Well a LITTLE of any bad thing can be too much. Consider 1 ounce of dog feces in a batch of brownies… Would YOU eat it?

    4. I see no example in the Bible of either Jesus or any apostle stuppng to the level of using crude language to get a point across. If they did not, should we?

    5. The Bible teaches that we are to die to self that Jesus may live though us. WHen a person like Mr Swindoll has to be in the world to be reelvant (by using innapropriate language) he ignores the Biblical admonishion that we are to be in the world but not OF it.

    Perhaps if people actually read the Bible and followed it, there would be less need to do another thing that the Bible commands - to reprove and rebuke each other when we fall.

    VCY FOLLOWED Matthew 18 with Mr Swindoll in trying to get him to recognize his fault. Everyone should READ Matthew 18 and see what we are commanded to do when our brother refuses to repent.

    At the end of the day. we either obey God’s Word or we don’t. People here nned to stop being immature Christians and hold up what people say to the light of the Word and stop shooting the messenger when they don’t like what the Word says.

  • Posted by Nathan

    Carl,
    #4 - Check out Philippians 3:8 - dung or rubbish is hardly a correct/accurate translation.  I’d say that most of you would consider that pretty crude.
    Also, Galations 5:12 would be considered quite crude by the Slice crowd, according to their own definition, huh?

  • Posted by

    Nathan,

    I am not interested what Slice, you or I consider to be crude. The final authority on the matter should be the Bible.

    1. Did VCY follow Matthew 18? I think they did

    2. What does the Bible say abuot crude language? Consider Ephesians 4:29 whish states, “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” Philippians 1:27 states, “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ;”. And, in Titus 2:7-8 it states, “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech that cannot be condemned ; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you.”

  • Posted by

    Nathan,

    You said you thought the use of dung in Phillipians 3:8 was “hardly a correct/accurate translation”. So I looked it up in the original Greek to find out if what you are saying is true.  You are wrong . It IS an accurate translation…

    it can mean refuse as in
    1. excrement which is cast out of the body or
    2. the “leavings” for a feast which is thrown away from the table.

    In either case, the word dung is correct AND accurate in the context of that verse.

    Be like a Berean like the BIBLE says.....

  • Posted by Daniel

    Carl, God bless you.  You clearly care about the reputation of the ministers of God’s Word, and you clearly care about holiness and discipleship--all crucial matters for the follower of our Lord.
    I do have a couple questions for you though.

    1. You quote Ephesians 4:29 which says we should let “no corrupt communication” come out of our mouths.  Amen!  But… ... who defines corrupt communication?  Haven’t many brother and sisters in Christ here tried to make the point that ‘corrupt communication’ is always relative to the hearer?  This is not relativism but merely linguistics 101.  Given Jesus’ and Paul’s primary concerns in the Scriptures, I don’t think they had specific words in mind when they talked about watching our tongues (cf. James), as if words had any kind of intrinsic ‘wrongness’ to them.  Rather, it’s a question of what the words do.  Are the words building up?  Or are they tearing down?  Are we blessing others, or are we calling them ‘fools’ with our words or our thoughts (which Jesus identified with a spirit of murder)?

    2. Why do you quote from the KJV?  It’s a beautiful, but very faulty translation.  I recommend the NRSV, or the ESV.

    This whole buzz about Chuck Swindoll is really quite unfortunate.  God is strong in our weaknesses, and so we should all pray that God uses Swindoll in spite of whatever faults he mights have.  And before we get too enamored with picking them out for him, we should work on those logs sticking out of our own sockets.
    Thank you for caring about Truth and God’s Word.  Only these matter supremely.
    Cheers,
    -Daniel-

  • Posted by Nathan

    Carl,
    I probably should have said “complete” and not just “accurate”.  The fact is, that word has synonyms in our language that you would consider crude.  They include, but are not limited to: crap, the “s-word”, poop, dookie, excrement, defecation, etc.

    You asked if there were any “...example(s) in the Bible of either Jesus or any apostle stuppng [sic] to the level of using crude language to get a point across?”

    I cited 2 examples of language you would consider crude.  I’m actually curious here, do you consider the 2 verses (there are many more) to be crude?  If not, then why not?

    I happen to agree with you that the Bible is the final authority.  However, like Todd said, the issue isn’t whether there we should use crude language, but what is considered crude.  Is the word “dung” not as crude as “crap”.  And is saying that someone should be “cut off” (ie. penis being cut off—emasculated) is better than using the word “balls” as a euphemism for courage.

    Perhaps you can point us to the verse that gives us a list of words that are “crude”, and therefore by default, sin?  I’m not sure I understand why (scripturally) you define these words as sinful?  Can you explain for us?

  • Posted by

    Daniel,

    Good questions! I will try to answer.

    I went to the dictionary for this so I would not put any personal slant to the definition of the word corrupt. I found this -
    1: lacking in integrity; “humanity they knew to be
    corrupt...from the day of Adam’s creation”; “a corrupt
    and incompetent city government” [ant: incorrupt]
    2: not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive [syn: crooked]
    [ant: straight]
    3: containing errors or alterations; “a corrupt text”; “spoke a
    corrupted version of the language” [syn: corrupted]
    4: touched by rot or decay; “tainted bacon”; “`corrupt’ is
    archaic” [syn: tainted]
    v 1: corrupt morally or by intemperance or sensuality; “debauch
    the young people with wine and women” [syn: pervert, demoralize,
    demoralise, debauch, debase, profane, vitiate,
    deprave, misdirect]
    2: alter from the original [syn: spoil]
    3: make illegal payments to in exchange for favors or
    influence; “This judge can be bought” [syn: bribe, buy]
    4: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; “sully someone’s
    reputation” [syn: defile, sully, taint, cloud]

    I use the King James for one simple reason. Its source is from the Textus Receptus which was a direct translation from the original Greek. I don’t not think the NRSV or the ESV are direct translations.

    Try this test between the KJV and the other versions.....

    Using the NRSV or the ESV , answer the following questions quiz.

    Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

    Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. “Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you.”

    According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?

    According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

    According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate’s first name?

    In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

    In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________

    According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

    According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

    In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

    In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

    In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

    According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

    In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

    John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

    What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

    In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

    In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

    What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

    Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

    Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain’s name? What did the chief captain command?

    Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

    First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

    In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

    Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

    Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, “I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:”

  • Posted by

    Nathan,

    I do not consider anything in God’s Word crude. You cite examples but dung is not crude. Feces is not crude. The “S” word is crude but the Bible does not use it does it?

    The Bible talks about sex too quite graphically in the old testament. However it does not do so with the intent to titilate does it? Therein lies the issue.

    IN your examples does anyone inthe Bible ever snicker or laugh after using the words dung or any others no.  The Bible describes sin so we understand what it is. For example, The Bible discusses homosexuality doesn’t it. What the Bible does NOT does is going into crude and detailed description of what a homosexual encounter is like. BIG difference don’t you see? And even in the book of Romans, no where do I see the writer snickering or chuckling while it discusses the matter.

    Does Mr Swindoll show the same restraint? I don’t think so

  • Posted by Jeff

    Great post, Todd!

    The Bible is a very “earthy” book.  There is no doubt about it.  And Jesus was blunt and offensive...I remember him talking about dogs returning to their vomit.

    I think that the slice ought to be more careful about what they imply too.  The Lion King is not a R rated movie.  How do you make the jump from Swindoll talking about the Lion King to promoting R rated movies?  I know...it is a slippery slope, right?

    Keep up the great work, Todd!

  • Posted by

    I personally believe that contemporary “culture” has become so ingrained into our chistian “culture”, that we are beginning to travel down a dangerous path - I suggest the path to what 1 Timothy 4 1-2 says “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron...”

    Again, I personally believe that I/we need to be MORE convicted and challenged regarding not just a “list” of words that are appropriate or not, but more the context in the WAY words/speech is used. If Chuck was stating at a medical function what the doctor did regarding his prostrate as an example of how the procedure works, then I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it. Now, during this particular program that has found worldwide attention, what was the context in him relating this procedure. Was their giggling? Was their “funny jeering” about the procedure? Was their “sniggling”? Was the conversation EDIFYING TO GOD??? Words in themselves aren’t necessarily evil - it is the way they are used!

    My prayer is for everyone out their following this lively “dialogue”, that each one of us (me included), to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phillipians 2:12). Hey guys, each one of us needs to be dying to our flesh DAILY, if not minute by minute. We are not OF the world - therefore our conduct should not be OF the world! God’s words, not mine!  I / we need the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

    “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks”
    Colossians 3:1-11 - “If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are ABOVE, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your MIND on things ABOVE, not on things on the earth"…

  • Posted by Nathan

    Carl,
    You make a good point.  There is certainly a biblical mandate to not be caught talking about sin in a flippant way.

    However, your position changed a little in your last post.  At first you were saying that it’s not right to be “crude” in order to prove a point.  I showed you that Paul did it, and as Jeff just said, Jesus did it too.  You then changed to “it shouldn’t be told as a joke”.  That’s all well and good, but what if the joke is meant to prove a point?  Is it ok then?

    Also, you said that dung is ok to say, but the s-word isn’t.  OK, why?  And what about “crap”?  Is that ok to say?  Poop?  Is referring to a man’s penis, implying that it should be cut off, a crude thing to say?

    My point is, I keep hearing (not just from you) that the Bible clearly tells us that this is a sin.  Yet when asked where the Bible makes this clear, I don’t hear very much.  And the little I do hear could easily be used to condemn the Bible’s own words!

    Am I missing something?

  • Posted by

    Nathan,

    The definition of the word crude is this -

    1. Being in an unrefined or natural state; raw.
    2. Lacking tact or taste; blunt or offensive: a crude, mannerless oaf; a crude remark.
    3. Characterized by uncultured simplicity; lacking in sophistication or subtlety: had only a crude notion of how a computer works.
    4. Not carefully or skillfully made; rough: a quick, crude sketch.
    5. Undisguised or unadorned; plain: must face the crude truth.
    6. Statistics In an unanalyzed form; not adjusted to allow for related circumstances or data.
    7. Archaic Unripe or immature.

    In the converstaion at hand, I would say that Swindoll was crude as in #2 above. I also showed that the use of the word dung in the Bible was not crude. I have never said it is ok to be crude. I am saying that Swindoll was not only crude, he thought it was funny to do so.

    Let me illustrate a point here. I can say the man and woman had sex and concieved a child. Nothing crude about that sentence. However, if I say that same sentence to a child and laugh and snicker as I say the word sex, there are implications that sex is funny or something. If I take that a step futher and say that the people were writhing and pumping and grinding I have crossed a boundry that is crude and innapproriate. Writhing, pumping and grinding as stand alone words are not necessary “bad” its all in the context. Now if I do that during a worship service or at a Christian men’s seminar, it is not only inappropriate, it is not God-Honoring.

    I look at it this way. Would Swindoll talk the way he did if God was sitting in the front row or would he be more respectful of the Creator of the Universe? Well I got news for Chuck, God WAS there!

    What bothers me, and I know this is a personal issue, is that we show respect for our bosses, or leaders and others in authority, but many don’t have the same level for our Lord and Savior. I know for certain is I talked the way Swindoll did at my work during a meeting, I would be quickly fired and I don’t work in a church.

  • Posted by

    This is the point that I believe others have been trying to make. I have not heard the first person say that crude, foul, profane language is good, right, or positive. What I have read many say here is that the Bible does not spell out that which is crude.

    Carl said:
    “In the converstaion at hand, I would say that Swindoll was crude as in #2 above.”

    That statement is opinion. You, Carl, say that it was crude. You have the right and authority to speak for yourself, and you have done so.

    That which I find crude, you might not. That which offends you might not offend me. Unfortunately, this is not one of those issues which is as clear-cut as some might like for it to be.

  • Posted by

    Blair,

    Unfortunately, the Bible would disagree with you.....

  • Page 1 of 4 pages

     1 2 3 >  Last »
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: