Richard Pratt on Legalism

One of my favorite essays by Richard Pratt is "I Want to Walk Free, But I Still Hear the Chains Rattling." The article describes three kinds of legalism: the first is the legalism which seeks to gain salvation by works; the second is the legalism which seeks to keep salvation by works; and the third is the legalism which builds a fence around the law (thereby adding additional laws) in order to be sure one does not break any commandments. In refuting the third kind of legalism, Pratt says:

[The Puritans] had another doctrine that is important to remember at this time. They called it the “liberty of conscience.” During the 17th century the Church of England tried to force a Prayerbook on all churches. Many Puritans refused to accept the Prayerbook because they felt it violated their freedom, their liberty of conscience. The argument went something like this. The Bible tells us to pray. It also tells us to pray in worship. But it does not tell us precisely when, how, or what to pray. For this reason, these matters must not be legislated. They are matters of freedom for Christians to pursue in different ways.

When the Bible does not tell us precisely what to think, do or feel in a particular situation, we have a measure of liberty. We must not use that freedom as an excuse to violate what Scriptures teach, but we also must never allow our conscience to be violated by the legalism of those who insist that we follow rules that go beyond the Scriptures.

Unfortunately, many Christians isolate liberty of conscience to just a handful of issues. For instance, we often speak of things like dancing, going to movies, and the like as matters of conscience. But in reality, there is a measure of liberty of conscience in every issue of the Christian life. The Bible guides us because it is God’s authoritative revelation. We must not ignore even the least of the commandments in the Bible. But we must also recognize that the Bible does not specify in utter detail what we are to do in the particular circumstances we face in our lives. It draws parameters, but it does not pinpoint issues in minute detail.

Why would God give us a revelation that left so much room for the freedom of conscience? I can think of at least two reasons. First, in many respects Christian freedom comes from the fact that God has given us revelation in a book. The apostle John admitted that “the whole world would not have room for the books” it would take to write down all that Jesus did (John 21:25). Can you imagine how many volumes it would take to give specific instructions for every situation human beings face? Judaism has tried to work out these details in the never-ending volumes of the Talmud. Happily, Christians have resisted the temptation to form a Christian Talmud. We seek to live by the one book God has given us. But this book only describes general policies; it gives broad brushstrokes of what God would have us do with our lives. Beyond these teachings we live with liberty of conscience.

Second, the freedom we enjoy in Christ also helps us see that our faith is more than a matter of rules and regulations. There is a personal, dynamic dimension of the Christian walk which must be nurtured if we are to live for Christ. In other words, even with the Bible in hand we have to be led by the Holy Spirit who lives in us. He illumines and convicts us of the ways in which Christ would have us apply the Bible to our lives. We have to remember that the Holy Spirit never leads anyone to violate Scripture, but we must also hold firmly to the belief that his personal ministry to each follower of Christ leads us into proper application of the Bible for the particular challenges we face.

The entire article is worth a read. For those in the area, Pratt will be speaking in Birmingham, AL, at Briarwood Presbyterian on Sunday, February 25th, at 8 AM, 10:55 AM, and 6 PM, as well as Monday, February 26th, and Tuesday, February 27th, at 6:30 PM.

On Spiritual Warfare (II)

I gave a presentation today on the necessity of dependence on God and deciding truth based on the word of God, not through independent logic, science or other processes. (This post will use language common in discussions of presuppositionalism, a method of apologetics; for more information, go to my post here.) My feeling is that my words largely fell on deaf ears; it was given to a group of people who had largely written off the Bible as errant, flawed and full of contradictions, who were committed to reading the Bible critically. After hearing a thirty minute response on why the Bible should be read critically, I was pretty discouraged. It wasn't that I had expected the message to be received well; I knew the students at large would have aversion to what I had to say. I had comfort from the Bible's statement in Luke that some people could see a person rise from the dead yet still not believe in God, and in John which says the unregenerate man has an aversion to truth. My sickness wasn't so much shock as discouragement.

Encouragement later that day came from many places, however. Sitting down after lunch, I listened to a recorded sermon from Dr. Gaines, who pointed out that the beginning of liberal theology was in Genesis 3 (in which Eve decided to test God's promises by listening to the serpent instead; this is essentially what liberals do, by setting themselves up as independent judges of truth, disregarding the word of God). Also, near the end of the day I was able to sit down with someone and have a very productive conversation regarding evolution and Calvinism (using the same methods I had presented that morning). God brought considerable peace to my heart about what I had presented that day and what I continued to hold true.

And just as I prepared to go to sleep (obviously I wasn't very successful, as I'm not asleep yet), I opened my Bible to 2 Corinthians 10, which talks about taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. But really the chapter is about much more than that; it's about spiritual warfare:

1I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ--I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!-- 2I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. 3For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

7Look at what is before your eyes. If anyone is confident that he is Christ's, let him remind himself that just as he is Christ's, so also are we. 8For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. 9I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. 10For they say, "His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account." 11Let such a person understand that what we say by letter when absent, we do when present. 12Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.

I have done a couple things with this passage. First, I have italicized parts in the passage which I believe give us considerable insight into Paul's character. In my blog below, I discussed the fact that a remembrance of spiritual warfare affects the way we treat unbelievers or even believers who sin. I won't recap everything again, but basically, we're dealing with evil spiritual forces who are waging for the hearts of men.

Secondly, though, I have bolded parts in the passage which deal specifically with spiritual warfare. Verse 5 is probably what is most familiar to everyone in this passage. When we study the Bible, and judge our thinking in light of the Bible, we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. When we challenge those who don't believe the Bible as we do, we are challenging them to also take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ - for how can one have so much faith in his own ability to reason apart from God? Indeed, this verse is familiar to many apologists.

But what many people do not always remember is that taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ is a part of spiritual warfare. I don't know about you, but verse 4 brings shivers down my spine every time I read it -- the weapons of our warfare have divine power to destroy strongholds! These weapons at every Christian's disposal are prayer and the proclamation of the gospel, God's word. The spiritual strongholds are demonic opposition to the gospel.

This passage greatly humbles us, and reminds us of God's grace. Often apologetics is treated as some sort of game, a competition to see who is most eloquent and reasonable, etc. But instead we're engaging in spiritual warfare -- a serious matter indeed. We are reminded that there is no power in ourselves to convince others of the Bible and the gospel. Demonic strongholds are viciously opposing the gospel, and only the Holy Spirit, in using God's word, which is living and active, like a two edged sword, can change human hearts. But yet we are greatly humbled that God would both use us to present God's word and allow us to use the weapons of spiritual warfare. The passage also reminds us, again, to treat everyone with humility and respect, as everyone is created in the image of God, and we are dealing with much more than flesh and blood in presenting the gospel.

Thus, in view of God's commission to believers to preach the gospel and take our every thought to his obedience, I pray Psalm 139:

"Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!"

On Spiritual Warfare

Lately, for whatever reason, I have been pondering about spiritual warfare. It's something many of us do not think much about; since we don't visibly see our enemy, the devil, with his demons waging war against angels, we think of conflicts in life as primarily conflicts between humans.

In his classy concession speech to Bob Corker on November 7th, Harold Ford, Jr., said the following:

"[It's] so easy when these things happen to get mad and angry, and I hope all of you who... watched this stuff and saw this stuff, don't be angry about it. I'm reminded of my favorite piece of Scripture that was quoted throughout this campaign, and is the start of the second chapter of the book we wrote on the campaign trail, from the book of Ephesians, the sixth chapter, the twelfth verse:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."

The first thing that crossed into my mind when I watched the speech was, "Is Ford trying to say that the Corker campaign is an evil spiritual force?" Of course, this isn't what he meant. Instead, by using this verse, he was drawing attention to the fact that there is a bigger enemy than the Democrats or Republicans who run for office against you. It's the forces of evil which fight tooth and nail against the common good.

John Calvin, in his commentary on Ephesians 6, makes the following point:

To impress them still more deeply with their danger, [Paul] points out the nature of the enemy, which he illustrates by a comparative statement, Not against flesh and blood. The meaning is, that our difficulties are far greater than if we had to fight with men. There we resist human strength, sword is opposed to sword, man contends with man, force is met by force, and skill by skill; but here the case is widely different. All amounts to this, that our enemies are such as no human power can withstand. By flesh and blood the apostle denotes men, who are so denominated in order to contrast them with spiritual assailants. This is no bodily struggle.

Let us remember this when the injurious treatment of others provokes us to revenge. Our natural disposition would lead us to direct all our exertions against the men themselves; but this foolish desire will be restrained by the consideration that the men who annoy us are nothing more than darts thrown by the hand of Satan. While we are employed in destroying those darts, we lay ourselves open to be wounded on all sides. To wrestle with flesh and blood will not only be useless, but highly pernicious. We must go straight to the enemy, who attacks and wounds us from his concealment, -- who slays before he appears.

I really like what Dr. Steve Gaines says in his book, Morning Manna, in the devotional for January 28th, about spiritual warfare. He asks the question, how can we overcome Satan?

We Must Know Our Position. Jesus is Lord over the spirit world. He sits sovereignly at the right hand of God the Father who is making all of His enemies, including the devil, a footstool for His feet (Psalm 110:1). As Christians, we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ (Ephesians 2:4-6). Since Satan is under Christ's feet, he is under ours as well. "In Christ" we have the authority to cast out demons (Mark 3:14-15), and to tread victoriously upon demonic "serpants and scorpions" (Luke 10:19).

We Must Use Our Protection. Christians must regularly put on the whole armor of God through prayer in order to defeat the devil (Ephesians 6:10-18). The girdle of truth, shoes of the Gospel of peace, breastplate of righteousness, helmet of salvation, shield of faith, and sword of the Spirit (Word of God) are spiritual weapons that empower us to tear down demonic strongholds and defeat the enemy (2 Corinthians 10:3-5).

We Must Rely on God's Power. Believers have power over the devil through the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 John 4:4), the name of Jesus (Acts 16:18), the blood of Jesus (Revelation 12:10-11), and the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). If we appropriate and utilize these resources, we will see the demonic forces around us begin to fall.

For whatever reason we tend to forget about the spiritual battles being waged, and focus solely instead on fighting fellow images of God. Perhaps it's because we like to think we can overcome sin ourselves, without God's help. Don't get me wrong - Christians should take stands against people who do wrong and oppose truth; but we should not let bitterness to take root. Keeping Paul's words about spiritual warfare in mind will remind us of our duty to pray continually for God's help. For indeed, as Genesis 4 says, "If you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." I'll close with something Dr. Richard L. Pratt says in his book, Designed for Dignity:

Recognizing the threat of evil is essential to overcoming the effects of sin. As long as we think that sin is merely an internal struggle - a flaw within us - we will never take it as seriously as we ought. We can manage that kind of devil. But what about a supernatural Satan with the goal of conquering and ruining us? We have to take that kind of Devil seriously. We put up our defenses and form our counterstrategies. We work hard to master sin before it masters us.

And a couple questions to think about:

1. How should Paul's words in Ephesians 6:12 affect how we treat other people?
2. And, how should Paul's words in Ephesians 6:12 affect how we respond to the threat of sin in our everyday lives?

John Frame on Tithing

From Dr. John Frame's forthcoming Doctrine of the Christian Life, to be published this year:

As we have seen, Mal. 3:8 says that failure to tithe is actually robbing God. So we should consider the biblical obligation of the tithe and how it affects us. The Mosaic Law mentions tithes in several places, and there is some dispute about how many tithes there were and what percentage of one’s income was finally required. Rushdoony presents one possible interpretation of the data:

The regular tithe, ten percent of one’s income (Deut. 14:22) was then tithed to the priests, who received ten percent of the tithe (Num. 18:21-28 ). Thus, the church tithe was a fraction of the total tithe. The poor tithe, paid every other year (Deut. 14:28; Amos 4:4), alternated with the rejoicing tithe (Deut. 14:22-26) on each six-year cycle out of seven. Thus, the combined poor tithe and religious tithe, averaged out to about 15 percent per year; some say 18 percent. Some of the regular tithe went for levitical services to worship, and to music; much of it went to general social financing, i.e. to godly education and a number of other related services.

Of course, the priests had income from other sources as well. Portions of grain (Lev. 2:3, 10, 7:14) and meat (Lev. 7:31-36) from the sacrifices were eaten by the priests, and they also ate the showbread after it was removed from its stand in the tabernacle or temple (Lev. 24:9). The census head tax (Ex. 30:11-16) also went “for the service of the tent of meeting.”

The tithe was not a tithe on wealth, or even on income generally, but on agricultural produce. So, the tithes are not deposited in a bank, but in a storehouse (Mal. 3:10). The tithe is holy, and its holiness seems to be connected with the holiness of the Promised Land:

Every tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the LORD's; it is holy to the LORD. (Lev. 27:30)

It might be argued, therefore, that the tithe is not appropriate in the new covenant, in which the promise of Canaan fades away into the greater promise of the new heavens and new earth. We note however that Abraham, who owned no land in Canaan, paid a tithe to Melchizedek, the mysterious priest-king who in Hebrews foreshadows Christ (Gen. 14:20, Heb. 7:4-10). Can we give anything less to the Christ who fulfills the priesthood of Melchizedek?

The New Testament does not explicitly require the tithe, though it says much about giving. Its emphasis, in passages like 2 Corithians 8-9, is that giving should be voluntary and cheerful (2 Cor. 9:7-8 ), but also generous. In Acts 4:34-37, we read of Christians selling property to meet the needs of their poor. We shall look at their view of poverty in the next chapter. But radical giving seemed to be a rule for them, and a joy.

Newcomers sometimes ask church members how much money they should give to the church. The question seems crass, and church people often find various ways to avoid answering it. But for someone new to the Christian community it is a reasonable question. How much is expected, in general, a ball-park figure? 100%, (like the poor widow in Mark 12:42-43)? 80%,? 50%?, 10%? Well, in a way God demands all that we have, and sometimes he demands that in literal ways, as when he calls someone to martyrdom or to the poor widow’s moral heroism. But our inquirer is interested in what would be considered a normal amount, a base from which one may proceed to more extreme gifts. When I talk to such inquirers, I cannot get out of my head that again and again in the Old Testament the figure 10% recurs. That is the Lord’s portion. It may be that in the New Testament that amount is not strictly required. But surely the “cheerful” giving of 2 Cor. 9:7 cannot be much less than that. So I unashamedly recommend to inquirers the tithe, as a beginning of financial discipleship.

Also, Ra McLaughlin was kind enough to respond to this Reformed perspective arguing against tithing.

Update: Ra McLaughlin also responded to my question on whether all of his tithes must be given to his local church:

In my opinion, Malachi 3:10 does not teach that all of one's tithe ought to be given directly to the church.

The problem in Malachi was not that the people were giving some of their tithe to the Temple (where the storehouse was) and other portions of their tithe to other Levites. That is to say, God was not complaining about the misallocation of tithes. Rather, he was complaining about the fact that the people were not paying their tithes to anyone at all, but were keeping the tithes for themselves. So, he was instructing them to pay their tithes in full.

"Storehouse" is used here in a somewhat metaphorical sense. There really were storage rooms in the temple, and some of the tithes certainly could have been put there. But these storerooms certainly were not big enough to hold the full tithe. Moreover, the tithe was given to support all the Levites, not just those in the Temple, and the Levites were not required to travel to Jerusalem to obtain their sustenance. Rather, the Law seems to provide that they can receive tithes wherever they are. So, we should understand "storehouse" as referring more broadly to the Levites in general.

The church is not really the modern parallel to the ancient Levites. Rather, individuals who work in ministry are the closest parallel to the Levites. The church is a good place to give money in order to get it to the modern Levites, but this is not the only way to get money to these people.

More Books Lists & A Christian Conference

Sometimes I think I browse online looking for books I want to read more than I actually read books. A few days ago I posted Reformed Theological Seminary's recommend reading list. Today (and by today I mean 2:30 AM on Friday, January 19th), I ran across John Piper & Desiring God Ministries' recommended reading list. Once again, there are a lot of titles, but I think this one is better organized than the other list. I've also created a wish list of books I hope to purchase and read soon. Actually, there's a fat chance of me getting the time to read Herman Bavinck's 4-volume set of systematic theology time soon, but I can always dream, right?

Also, on a slightly but not really related note, Tim Keller, pastor of the large Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, will be speaking in Memphis tonight at Second Presbyterian's "Cruciformity" conference. Keller does only one conference a year, and this is it. If all goes as planned, I'll be there and will give you my thoughts afterwards on the blog. If you're interested, check out the conference page here; it's free. Technically the conference lasts through Saturday, but I won't be able to make it on that day.

Update: I went to Friday night's session, and it was very good. To listen to the sermons, go here; for full sermon notes, go here. By the way, Second Presbyterian also announced next year's spaker at the Christian Life Conference: Richard L. Pratt!

On Divorce and Remarriage

What does the Bible teach regarding divorce? This has been a long debated question among conservative scholars, and given the sensitive nature of the issue, it's not an easy question to tackle. In this post, I will examine three common views on divorce and give you my opinion on what Jesus expects from us in marriage.

Three of the four gospels discuss Jesus' view on divorce. In two of these gospels, Jesus gives an (seemingly) absolute prohibition of divorce. In Luke 16:18, Jesus says, "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." Similarly, in Mark 10:11-12, Jesus says, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." However, the book of Matthew provides an exception clause. Matthew 5:32 says, "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

The most common view that I have come across with on the issue of divorce is exactly what Matthew seems to imply: that Jesus forbids divorce except in the case of marital unfaithfulness.

In Genesis 2:24-45, God gave us the prescription for the marriage, which was an institution established even before the fall. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." From these verses we see that, as the saying goes, marriage involves leaving ("Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother") and cleaving ("and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh").

However, in the Old Testament, God gives an allowance for divorce due to man's fallen nature, and it seems that in Matthew Jesus still allows divorce to an extent. People who hold this view say that the exception clause given in Matthew would be obvious to Jesus' listeners, and thus it is left out of Mark and Luke.

Another view that I have encountered says that, while the above is true, 1 Corinthians 6 prohibits filing lawsuits against other believers (as I discussed a few days ago), and in modern times, filing for a lawsuit would be bringing one's case before a secular judge. Thus, if one's spouse is indeed a believer, he or she should follow the Matthew 18 principle and seek the spouse's repentence. If the spouse does not turn from his or her sin, the church should administer discipline, in which case the spouse would be declared an unbeliever ("And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector...") and could be divorced.

However a final view -- which I also believe is the correct view -- says that divorce is never permitted, and seems to solve major questions from the first two views. First, why divorce would be absolutely permitted in Mark and Luke but not Matthew? An examination of the Greek text gives us a big clue. The passage in Matthew 5 does not actually use the Greek word for adultery (moicheia), which many have found strange before. Instead it uses the Greek word for sexual immorality (porneia). Besides a similar passage on divorce found in Matthew 19, the only other place this word is used in Matthew is Matthew 15:19 ("For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander"), where the word "porneia" is found alongside the word "moicheia" -- thus, surely this verse isn't using two different words for adultery (notice, the verse does not say, "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, adultery...")?

Instead, by including the exception clause, Matthew seems to be pointing back to the story of Joesph and Mary in Matthew 1, in which Joseph decided to quietly divorce Mary, to whom he was betrothed ("And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly"). A betrothal in Joseph's time was taken much more seriously than our engagements, and breaking a betrothal was considered divorce. Thus, Matthew is making it clear to his readers that Joseph would have done no wrong if he were to divorce Mary in this instance, as indeed they had not yet become "one flesh" and Mary was suspected of sexual immorality. The reason Matthew includes the exception clause is because it is the only book to include the account of Joseph's planning to divorce Mary.

As well as clearing up problems with the first two interpretations of Jesus' words on divorce, this third view simply makes much more sense. If a married couple truly become "one flesh," no divorce could ever break the emotional bonds they still have, even if the divorce was because of sexual immorality. The third view, thus, promotes a much higher view of marriage. (Thanks to John Piper and his explanation of divorce for his explanation of this view of divorce).

Now, before concluding, I thought one more common view on divorce should be discussed. This view says that, in addition to an allowance in Matthew for divorce on the ground of sexual immorality, divorce and remarriage is also permitted if an unbeliever deserts his or her Christian spouse, citing 1 Corinthians 7:15, which says, "if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace." The phrase "the brother or sister is not enslaved" has been interpreted to mean that the believing partner can remarry if the unbelieving partner divorces him. However, I believe that a more accurate reading of the passage, which would not contradict Jesus' prohibition on divorce and remarriage (remarriage is only fine after a spouse dies), simply says that the believing spouse is free to let the unbeliever leave if the unbeliever truly wants to do so, and the believing spouse can live in peace. The word enslaved here (or "bound" in some versions) is a different Greek word than used in 1 Corinthians 7:39, "A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives," which talks about a wife being legally bound to her husband." The word used in verse 15 implies the person does not have to live in bondage (he or she can live in peace), not that he or she is free to remarry because the marriage bond is broken.

On Language

Anyone who regularly watches the Christian blogosphere will have probably noticed the big outcry this week over Dr. John Piper using the word “ass” in a Passion ’07 session. Speaking to thousands of youth, John Piper found it appropriate to talk about how sometimes God must “kick our ass” (i.e., discipline us) when we get out of line. Piper’s usage of the word caused hardly a stir in the audience, but apparently a few parents were offended and thus Piper issued an apology. Yet some still think that Piper’s apology was not enough (it didn’t call cussing a sin, and said sometimes it may be fine to use cuss words), and certain evangelicals like Dr. Wayne Grudem have sent him letters outlining a theological argument against cussing.

Knowing that the Bible does not outright prohibit the use of obscenities in speech (though it does prohibit profanity – I’ll get to that later), Grudem’s argument is that believers should avoid such words because they ought to have a reputation for “cleanliness.”

Said Grudem, “Using the words commonly thought to be offensive in the culture seems to me to be sort of the verbal equivalent of not wearing deodorant and having body odor, or of going around with spilled food on our shirts all the time. Someone might argue that not wearing deodorant or wearing dirty clothes are not morally wrong things in themselves, but my response is that they do give needless offense and cause others to think of us as somewhat impure or unclean. So, I think, does using words commonly thought to be "obscene" or "offensive" or "vulgar" in the culture generally.”

Grudem does have a valid point here. When believers use such words in public, some people will automatically judge them because they have grown up considering certain words as sinful. However, Grudem’s argument only goes so far. What about when the believer is around people who are simply not offended by “cuss words” and would not view the words as “unclean”?

I remember back in my high school drama class when I was in front of the class casually talking to some friends. At one point, my drama teacher expressed shock over something I said and told me to “apologize immediately.” Now, I really had no idea what she was reacting to, so I wasn’t sure what she wanted me to apologize about. One of my friends then pointed out that I had used the word “suck,” and so I apologized to her. Now, for me, saying the word caused no guilt feelings, as some people have when they say certain words. Using the word “suck” is like using any other word to me. But some people, including my drama teacher, find the word genuinely unacceptable and sinful, and thus they are shocked when they hear such words used. I really had no way of knowing she was offended by the word, however, since many of my teachers and even youth pastors had also used the word and took no offense to my ever using it.

I also remember another incident, which happened fairly recently, in which I was sitting near the front at Bellevue. In the middle of Dr. Steve Gaines’ giving the customary welcome to visitors, the power suddenly turned off, causing all the lights to go out and giving off a loud noise. Being startled, I used the word “crap,” though immediately I noticed that the people sitting in the rows in front of me, who were all probably fifty years older than I, may not appreciate the word “crap.” So, I was pretty embarrassed, though no one around me reacted negatively. During the greeting time, I was asked by one older couple if I was a first time visitor, though, which led me think they probably heard my words.

Now, in these incidents, I was around people who took offense to the words “suck” and “crap,” though in the general culture, most people do not view these words as cuss words. Now, it was probably not wise to use these words in these situations, but let’s go back to Grudem’s argument. Grudem argues that one should only use words that are culturally acceptable, to give the appearance of cleanliness. However, what makes a word culturally acceptable?

Let’s go back to Piper’s use of the word “ass.” As I said before, Piper was speaking before a crowd of thousands of youth, and there is no evidence that the crowd so much as blinked at his language. (No one, not even any bloggers, knew of the incident until Piper wrote an apology.) Why? The word “ass” is a word that is accepted in these kids’ culture. What many people like Grudem often do not realize is that a word that is offensive to them is not offensive to everyone. For the youth whom Piper was speaking to, “ass” is the same as Grudem’s suggested word, backside. They have no guilt feelings when saying or hearing the word. Their ears do not suddenly perk when they hear the word, like my drama teacher’s ears did when I used the word “suck.”

Let me also use an example from the Bible to further illustrate my point. In the King James Version of the Bible, 2 Kings 18:27 says, "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" Now, in modern times, the word “piss” has a much different connotation for many people than it would have a few hundred years ago. Newer translations no longer render it this way. But then, the word “piss” was a culturally accepted word. (Even in modern times, though, many people take no offense to the word.)

Now, it’s important for me at this point to discuss the difference between “profanity” and “obscenities.” I would view a profanity as a holy word that is used in a common way. For instance, many in our culture accept taking the Lord’s name in vain, or using Jesus’ name in an exclamatory way. People in our culture do this all the time, and people generally take the Lord’s name in vain more often than they will use stronger cuss word in public. However, using God’s name like this is always wrong, as the fourth commandment says, “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” Obscenities, on the other hand, would be words that the culture finds offensive, but are not necessarily profane.

What are we to do with culturally taboo words, then? The key here, I think, is discernment. Some things you just don’t say in polite company. This goes even beyond words. Circumcision is a topic talked about in the Bible, but you won’t often find it to be a topic at the dinner table (though, this example came to my mind because I have heard about this talked about at the dinner table before!). Many passages in the Bible, including the 2 Kings passage quoted above, or Scriptures like Ezekiel 23, would also be offensive in polite company. This doesn’t mean these Scriptures themselves are sinful, it just means that there are certain topics that are “off limits” in certain situations. We ought to be all things to all people, and this means not saying certain words or discussing certain topics around people who are offended by them, or during times that it would be inappropriate. Grudem took issue with Piper’s suggestion that there is more offensive language in the Bible than the word “ass,” assuming he meant Paul’s writing in Philippians 3:8, in which he uses the Greek word “skubalon” which many think now would be rendered as “sh--.” Grudem says Paul may have been simply meaning garbage. Whatever Paul meant here, surely Grudem does not believe that drinking one’s excrement, as 2 Kings talks about, is not at least more offensive than using the word “ass.” No matter how the word “piss” is rendered, the entire concept is… well… sick! Yet, it’s in the Bible.

Are there any situations where “cuss words” can be, or even should be, used, then? Ra McLaughlin of Third Millenium Ministries uses an example in which using an obscenity could actually help further the gospel: “My friend and fellow seminarian was witnessing on the street to some of the Goth crowd who were into Wicca. Their own language was vulgar, but they did not perceive it as vulgar. In presenting the gospel to them, in an attempt to communicate to them on a level that they could really understand, my friend pointed out the fact to them that since the Fall, the world has been "totally f**ked up." Their response was a contemplative and agreeing "yeah." In my judgment, this falls under the category of being all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:19-22).” Going further with the “all things to all people” idea, McLaughlin notes that “it might be less offensive to use [cuss words] than to appear "better than" the people whose company I was keeping.”

McLaughlin goes on: “On a very important level, a word is just a word. It is society's perception of that word that makes it vulgar, or rather, the perception of a portion of society. Parts of society consider some words "impolite," "profane" or "vulgar" regardless of the content they convey, but other parts of society do not consider these same words to be vulgar. In fact, "vulgar" does not describe a word as "bad" or "evil," but rather "common" or "low class." "Profane" does not mean "evil" or "gross," but simply "worldly" or "non-sacred." The "bad words" are the ones that cultured society does not use, but which lower class people (or by association, the "bad people") do use.

”Over time, in our society these words began to cause negative reactions in some people because they considered them to be offensive. However, there is nothing magical/spiritual in the sounds or meanings of the words themselves that caused this association. Rather, it was the contexts in which these words were generally used. For nearly every profane word usage, there is another non-profane way to say the same thing that does not cause the same negative reactions in those who are more sensitive to profanity. But this does not mean that the words themselves are somehow evil sounds.”

Words can be used for good or for bad – for building up or tearing down. I believe Piper was using the word “ass” redemptively, to get his point across clearly to a young audience. At the same time can using cuss words be a sin? Yes. Suppose there was a heckler in the audience, and Piper called the audience member an “assh---.” This, to me, would go against what Ephesians 4:29 says: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” But I can’t help but think Piper’s use of the word “ass” in his speech was a redemptive use of the word. And I do not find any evidence in the Bible that using certain cuss words around people who are not offended by them, and are not tearing people down, would be a sin.