Sing4Him
September 23rd, 2008, 11:12 AM
Clarifying “Harsh Language”
September 23rd, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Perhaps Doug Wilson said it best last week when, in a comment on his own blog, he wrote:
Just for the record, I draw a distinction between what is appropriate in the pulpit and elsewhere . . . . [T]he voltage of words varies, not just according to century, but also according to the medium available to conduct it. And I also draw a distinction between prophetic polemical language and pomo bad boy usage. A right use of this kind of talk will be more likely to make everyone furious with you; a wrong use will get you book deals.
The distinctions Wilson draws are critical, and the second one in particular is something I should have clarified better in my post last Wednesday.
Hence today’s follow-up post.
- - -
Regarding the Confrontation of Sin and the Condemnation of Error
There is a legitimate form of “harsh language” that Christians can and should use. Such language encompasses the courageous confrontation of sin and hypocrisy along with the clear denunciation of false religion and doctrinal error. It does not involve profanity, silliness, or reckless vulgarity, yet it might be rightly regarded as “harsh” because it is tenaciously intolerant of error. It speaks the truth directly and without apology—saying what needs to be said, even if doing so results in being unpopular or unliked.
It means refuting those who contradict (Titus 1:9, 13); reproving the worldly deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11); shunning false teachers (2 John 10–11); casting down false arguments (2 Cor. 10:5); exposing the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1, 6); calling dissenters to repentance (2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:10); and warning apostates of the sure and terrible judgment that awaits them (cf. Matt. 23; Hebrews 6:4–8; Jude 8–13). Such speech was not only modeled by Christ, but by every Old Testament prophet and every New Testament writer. It is speech that contends earnestly for the faith (Jude 3–4), and as a result denounces every form of deception.
Insofar as Mark Driscoll limits his definition of “harsh language” to this kind of speech as in this video, we gladly agree with him:[YOU TUBE VIDEO]DEFhfIs26AM&eurl[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]
- - -
Regarding Flippancy, Frivolity, and Filthy Talk
But there is another kind of “harsh language” far different than the above. It is, as Wilson calls it, “pomo bad boy usage.” Such language encompasses sensuality, silly talk, and coarse jesting, and includes things like laughing at sin or jolting an audience with risqué images. It is unwholesome, distracting, degrading, and inappropriate. This kind of “harsh language” is explicitly prohibited by the New Testament in places like Ephesians 4:29; 5:3–4; Philippians 4:8; and Colossians 3:8. Charles Spurgeon included this kind of “lewd speaking” in his definition of “profane language,” about which he said: “I am unable to frame an excuse for profane language: it is needless willful wickedness.”
Insofar as Driscoll models this kind of “harsh language” (as in this video on humor or this video on birth control [warning: explicit content]:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/humor
and
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/birth-control/live-q-a
, both from Sunday services earlier this year), we sharply disagree with him.
(For a couple other more well-known examples, this time from his books, see here and here:
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/confessions-of.php
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-vintage-jesus-by-mark-driscoll.php)
In the video on humor, after discussing Aaron’s excuse for making the Golden Calf, Driscoll illustrates his point by laughingly drawing a parallel with fornication . . . after which he openly embraces his own use of “poopy comedy.” He says:
It’s like a dad walking in on his high school daughter with her boyfriend and they’ve got no clothes on and they’re like, “We don’t know what happened. We were talking and all our clothes fell off. I’ve got no idea. We’re victims. The belt’s defective.” I mean, it’s just, it’s funny.
The Bible also includes something that The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery calls “scatological humor.” I’ve been accused of this and it’s biblical. “Scatological humor” for those of you who are in public school, scat-a-lo-gi-cal – poopy comedy. That’s what it is, scatological humor.
Driscoll continues by defending scatological humor from supposed Old Testament examples. In so doing, he attempts to make the case that this type of ”harsh language” is a legitimate form of pastoral communication.
We are not convinced. Hence our article last week:
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/
(As a side note, those interested in more discussion on this issue will enjoy Al Mohler’s radio show from last Friday: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-09-19)
- - -
A Final Thought
As a young man myself, I understand why Mark Driscoll’s ministry is attractive to many within the next generation of evangelicalism. He is energetic, articulate, and bold. He has a zeal for impacting his community, and he’s willing to do so in ways that are creative and cutting-edge. (My wife is from Seattle, so I know the area well.) There is no question that he is a gifted and clever communicator which when joined with his evangelical theology makes for a compelling combination.
Yet there is one major asterisk that hovers over his ministry. And it is primarily seen in the “pomo bad boy usage” of the harsh language he sometimes employs.
Cultural contextualization is often cited as a justification for this kind of language, but contextualization is never justifiable if it takes us beyond the bounds of New Testament propriety. Moreover, the true power of any ministry is found not in clever speech (1 Cor. 1:17: 2:1–5), but in the faithful proclamation of the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16).:nod
As heralds of that gospel, we must watch our words carefully (cf. James 3). They represent not only us, but our holy Savior as well. Thus, we are called to conduct ourselves in a way that is honorable and above reproach. This includes modeling godly speech (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:16). As Paul told Titus:
In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:7–8)
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/23/clarifying-words-about-harsh-language/
September 23rd, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Perhaps Doug Wilson said it best last week when, in a comment on his own blog, he wrote:
Just for the record, I draw a distinction between what is appropriate in the pulpit and elsewhere . . . . [T]he voltage of words varies, not just according to century, but also according to the medium available to conduct it. And I also draw a distinction between prophetic polemical language and pomo bad boy usage. A right use of this kind of talk will be more likely to make everyone furious with you; a wrong use will get you book deals.
The distinctions Wilson draws are critical, and the second one in particular is something I should have clarified better in my post last Wednesday.
Hence today’s follow-up post.
- - -
Regarding the Confrontation of Sin and the Condemnation of Error
There is a legitimate form of “harsh language” that Christians can and should use. Such language encompasses the courageous confrontation of sin and hypocrisy along with the clear denunciation of false religion and doctrinal error. It does not involve profanity, silliness, or reckless vulgarity, yet it might be rightly regarded as “harsh” because it is tenaciously intolerant of error. It speaks the truth directly and without apology—saying what needs to be said, even if doing so results in being unpopular or unliked.
It means refuting those who contradict (Titus 1:9, 13); reproving the worldly deeds of darkness (Eph. 5:11); shunning false teachers (2 John 10–11); casting down false arguments (2 Cor. 10:5); exposing the doctrines of demons (1 Tim. 4:1, 6); calling dissenters to repentance (2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:10); and warning apostates of the sure and terrible judgment that awaits them (cf. Matt. 23; Hebrews 6:4–8; Jude 8–13). Such speech was not only modeled by Christ, but by every Old Testament prophet and every New Testament writer. It is speech that contends earnestly for the faith (Jude 3–4), and as a result denounces every form of deception.
Insofar as Mark Driscoll limits his definition of “harsh language” to this kind of speech as in this video, we gladly agree with him:[YOU TUBE VIDEO]DEFhfIs26AM&eurl[/YOU TUBE VIDEO]
- - -
Regarding Flippancy, Frivolity, and Filthy Talk
But there is another kind of “harsh language” far different than the above. It is, as Wilson calls it, “pomo bad boy usage.” Such language encompasses sensuality, silly talk, and coarse jesting, and includes things like laughing at sin or jolting an audience with risqué images. It is unwholesome, distracting, degrading, and inappropriate. This kind of “harsh language” is explicitly prohibited by the New Testament in places like Ephesians 4:29; 5:3–4; Philippians 4:8; and Colossians 3:8. Charles Spurgeon included this kind of “lewd speaking” in his definition of “profane language,” about which he said: “I am unable to frame an excuse for profane language: it is needless willful wickedness.”
Insofar as Driscoll models this kind of “harsh language” (as in this video on humor or this video on birth control [warning: explicit content]:
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/humor
and
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/religionsaves/birth-control/live-q-a
, both from Sunday services earlier this year), we sharply disagree with him.
(For a couple other more well-known examples, this time from his books, see here and here:
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/confessions-of.php
http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-vintage-jesus-by-mark-driscoll.php)
In the video on humor, after discussing Aaron’s excuse for making the Golden Calf, Driscoll illustrates his point by laughingly drawing a parallel with fornication . . . after which he openly embraces his own use of “poopy comedy.” He says:
It’s like a dad walking in on his high school daughter with her boyfriend and they’ve got no clothes on and they’re like, “We don’t know what happened. We were talking and all our clothes fell off. I’ve got no idea. We’re victims. The belt’s defective.” I mean, it’s just, it’s funny.
The Bible also includes something that The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery calls “scatological humor.” I’ve been accused of this and it’s biblical. “Scatological humor” for those of you who are in public school, scat-a-lo-gi-cal – poopy comedy. That’s what it is, scatological humor.
Driscoll continues by defending scatological humor from supposed Old Testament examples. In so doing, he attempts to make the case that this type of ”harsh language” is a legitimate form of pastoral communication.
We are not convinced. Hence our article last week:
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/17/john-piper-mark-driscoll-and-harsh-language/
(As a side note, those interested in more discussion on this issue will enjoy Al Mohler’s radio show from last Friday: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-09-19)
- - -
A Final Thought
As a young man myself, I understand why Mark Driscoll’s ministry is attractive to many within the next generation of evangelicalism. He is energetic, articulate, and bold. He has a zeal for impacting his community, and he’s willing to do so in ways that are creative and cutting-edge. (My wife is from Seattle, so I know the area well.) There is no question that he is a gifted and clever communicator which when joined with his evangelical theology makes for a compelling combination.
Yet there is one major asterisk that hovers over his ministry. And it is primarily seen in the “pomo bad boy usage” of the harsh language he sometimes employs.
Cultural contextualization is often cited as a justification for this kind of language, but contextualization is never justifiable if it takes us beyond the bounds of New Testament propriety. Moreover, the true power of any ministry is found not in clever speech (1 Cor. 1:17: 2:1–5), but in the faithful proclamation of the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:16).:nod
As heralds of that gospel, we must watch our words carefully (cf. James 3). They represent not only us, but our holy Savior as well. Thus, we are called to conduct ourselves in a way that is honorable and above reproach. This includes modeling godly speech (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:16). As Paul told Titus:
In all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. (Titus 2:7–8)
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/09/23/clarifying-words-about-harsh-language/