Coarse and crude language must have been in vogue in the Apostle Paul’s day for him to address Christians in two different locations not to resort to such language or speech, as was common to the pagans. We may never allow such words to depart from our lips, but let’s not let such words depart from our clicks on social media or anywhere else either.  God’s standard of holiness is the same for both oral and written language.

Who is not aware of the increasing coarseness of language today?  Words once considered the most obscene or even blasphemous were censored from newspapers, magazines, articles, movies, and TV programs. Today, such words have become prolific not only in everyday speech, but also in the media.
Recently, an article appeared in The Wall Street Journal entitled, “Curses! Why All the Crude Talk?” It was written by Peter Funt, the son of Allen Funt of the original Candid Camera TV program.  In it he makes some amazing and striking statements.  Bear in mind the article is not religious in nature.
Here are some of those statements: “When friends or colleagues use the F-word as matter-of-factly as my parents said ‘gosh’ or ‘golly,’ it makes me cringe—but I seem to be part of a bleeping minority.”  Here is another: “Science has actually given a name to the benefits of swearing: lalochezia. It refers to the emotional relief gained from using profane speech. As far as I know, however, there is no term for the discomfort that many of us suffer when friends and colleagues pepper conversation with words that seem to relate more to their quest for social liberation than to communication.”
He even mentions national leaders openly using such language: “As vice president, Joe Biden famously used the F-word when congratulating President Obama on completing the 2010 healthcare legislation. Mr. Obama’s 2016 appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner included a video in which he jokingly says ‘F— you!’ to NBC’s Chuck Todd. In an interview with Vanity Fair, Mr. Obama conceded, ‘I curse more than I should, and I find myself cursing more in this office than I had in my previous life.’  Politico has reported that President Biden swears frequently in staff meetings, favoring the F-word.”
I am in a book club where the women are all Christians.  We read one book where on one page and in the same chapter that infamous word noted above was profusely mentioned more times than was needed.  It turned many of us off to be confronted with such obscene or profane language profusely.
As this is written to Christians in particular, am I implying I also hear Christians using such language?  Thankfully, no, I don’t.  But that doesn’t mean such language escapes us in a more subtle manner.  Most of us are involved in social media in some form.  Perhaps it’s Facebook or Twitter.  Those are the two I am most familiar with although I am on Facebook solely.  And that is where I have observed something that perhaps few have addressed.
This is what I am finding more often than I wish to see.  People post memes, that is, “an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by internet users, often with slight variations.”  Some aren’t humorous, but rather wise or thoughtful sayings.  That in itself is fine, but more and more they may include an introduction with the F-word or some other thoughtless or coarse language.
What is sad to me is that Christians are posting such memes, apparently not aware of the language or oblivious to it.  I have decided to never post or repost anything that contains such language.  My decision is based on two biblical passages addressed to Christians in the epistles.  One is “. . . and there must be no filthiness or foolish talk, or vulgar joking, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks”  (Ephesians 5: 4). The other is “But now you also, rid yourselves of all of them: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene speech from your mouth”  (Colossians 3: 8).
Coarse and crude language must have been in vogue in the Apostle Paul’s day for him to address Christians in two different locations not to resort to such language or speech, as was common to the pagans.
We may never allow such words to depart from our lips, but let’s not let such words depart from our clicks on social media or anywhere else either.  God’s standard of holiness is the same for both oral and written language.  We certainly do not wish to offend our God, do we?  Nor should we wish to offend and cause discomfort, as Mr. Funt noted, to those who read what we send.
It may help us to always remember these words: “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart always be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength and my redeemer”  (Psalm 19: 14).
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

When it comes to the comings of Christ, the parables shed much light on why the Son of God came. Contrary to the prevailing evangelical notion, Jesus came for more than to simply save sinners. He came to a specific people, at a specific time, in a specific context, for a specific and dual-functioning purpose. That purpose was to bring judgment upon His enemies and salvation to His people, which can be demonstrated throughout the parables of Christ.
For instance, when Christ comes, He will identify two groups of people in His incarnation. One that will be prepared for judgment. And the other who will be prepared for His blessings. These two themes show up in the vast majority of parables and give us insight into Jesus’ conception of His incarnation.
For instance, in one parable you have the righteous man building his house upon the rock, while the wicked builds in hubris upon the sand (Luke 6:46-49). In that story, the righteous man survives the near-term calamity and experiences ongoing blessings while the wicked man undergoes sudden destruction when the storm appeared.
Truth from parables like these can be applied in spiritual and universal ways since all who build their life on Jesus Christ will be ultimately and eternally spared, whereas building on anything else will warrant eternal calamities forever. But, spiritualized interpretations often miss the poignant reality this would have conveyed to the original audience. Jesus is warning that a first-century storm is coming and only those who were with Him would survive it, which gained terrifying clarity in the events of AD 70.
This kind of dualism between the imminent doom of the wicked and the near blessing of the righteous is too overt to ignore. For instance, the sheep will be brought into blessing, whereas the goats will be set apart for destruction (Matthew 25:31-36). The wheat is to be stored in Christ’s heavenly barns while the tares will be thrown into the flames (Matthew 13:24-30). The branches that bear fruit will be pruned for greater fruitfulness, and all those who are fruitless will be burned for their worthlessness (John 15:1-11). The king will bring new guests into the joy of His wedding while sending his armies to destroy the ones who were found unworthy (Matthew 22:1-14). On and on we may go.
Clarifying Parabolic Time
Some of these parables helpfully add a clarifying element of time, which let us know more will be going on in the first century than a hyper-spiritual application can account for. In the spiritual application, the parables were written for me, my benefit, and concern the things going on in my world. Jesus’ parables, however, clearly address events that apply to His contemporaries and things that will be happening in their world even while we still find comfort and application in them as well.
For instance, Christ the master will go on a long journey. When He returns, He will bless the slave who is found doing what He commanded (Luke 12:35-44). But, to the one who is lazy, wicked, and evil, He will bring violence, death, and destruction (Luke 12:45-48). This happened in AD 70.
The temptation today is to read a multiple thousand-year gap into texts like these, supposing that its contents apply to us or some future generation. Beyond breaking the most basic rules of Biblical hermeneutics, this is not how the story world of a parable works. In the parable, a human master goes on a human journey that seemed especially long to his human servants. When he returned, those same servants were still alive. Some were rewarded for their faithfulness while their master was away. The others were punished and even killed for their wickedness.
Had the master in the story left on a two-thousand-year journey, both he and his slaves would have to be near immortal to survive until he returned, which cannot be Jesus’ point. But, if Jesus was preparing His disciples for the forty-year gap that existed between His ascension and judgment coming on Jerusalem in AD 70, the parable would make great sense. Jesus’ return would bring blessing to the ones who were committed to following Him. But, death and destruction for those who remained in their rebellion, such as the Jews.
One triad of parables makes this blessing / judgment coming of Christ undeniably clear. In Matthew 21-22, Jesus tells three successive parables, one right after the other, where one group will gain tremendous blessings and the other awful judgments. In the first, Jesus interprets the parable of the two sons, telling the Pharisees that the prostitutes and tax collectors will get into heaven ahead of them (Matthew 21:28-32). In the second, He interprets the parable of the landowner, warning the Jews that God’s kingdom will be taken away from them at His coming, and given to a people who will produce His fruit (Matthew 21:33-46). And in the third, Jesus reveals that the Jews were found unworthy to participate in His coming Kingdom so they are thrown out where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:1-14).
In each of these parables, the coming of the Son of Man is accomplishing a dualistic purpose. For the elect, Jesus’ coming will usher them into all the salvific blessings and eschatological joys available in God’s newly inaugurated Kingdom, the Church. For those who reject Him, there will be suffering, weeping, gnashing teeth, and imminent destruction. To the Jews, this happened during their lives, when their city was set on fire, their temple was devoted to destruction, and the Old Covenant kingdom of shadows and types came to a sudden cataclysmic end.
The parables Jesus taught prepared the discerning disciple for this apocalyptic outcome.
The Prophets and Dual Purpose Comings
This same theme of salvation and judgment at the Messiah’s coming shows up in the prophetic writings as well. For instance, in Joel 2, God promises to blow a trumpet of war, empowering a Northern army to bring swift and awful judgment against the Jews of the first century (Joel 2:1-11). But, His coming will also provide a way of salvation for the elect who will repent (Joel 2:12-17). In case we doubt the first-century timing of this prophecy, Joel cites Pentecost, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as the sign that will identify when his prophecy will occur. Here again, we see that Messiah’s first-century coming will be good news for some and terrifying for others.

It is obvious now, looking back at the post-9/11 and pre-Obergefell era, that the leftward drift of this movement was inevitable. The end of Renn’s “neutral world” and the beginning of a negative world hostile to Christianity began soon after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015  and accelerated rapidly with Trump’s 2016 victory. Changed circumstances undermined the attractive witness model as previously practiced. The neutral-world ethos could not hold in the negative world; the era of open debate was gone.

I converted to Christ in the year 2000, leaving behind my atheistic contrarianism. I entered American Protestantism completely unaware that something unique was occurring. In the 1980s, Calvinism reemerged as a potent intellectual force in evangelicalism, spearheaded by Baptists John Piper and John MacArthur and Presbyterian R. C. Sproul. In the early 2000s, young Gen X seminary graduates and writers who were influenced by these men became a movement known as the Young, Restless, and Reformed (YRR). New personalities and publishers emerged, and megachurches were formed. Centered on Calvinistic doctrines of salvation, these Baby Boomers and Gen X Calvinists achieved a good deal of theological unity. 
Their cross- and intra-generational unity was most evident in the Together for the Gospel conferences (T4G), which began in 2006 and held every other year. It was organized by four friends, already well-established in their own  circles in the pre-social media days—Mark Dever (Baptist), Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian), Albert Mohler (Baptist), and C.J. Mahaney (Charismatic), along with three invited speakers: Piper, MacArthur, and Sproul. What unified them were belief in biblical inerrancy, male headship of families, and the “five points” of Calvinism, which can be reduced (albeit simplistically) to the traditional Reformed doctrine of predestination. Thus, they were opposed to feminism, modern “critical” biblical scholarship, and the freewill doctrines of Arminianism. The conference grew over the years to include younger pastors such as David Platt (Baptist), Matt Chandler (Baptist), Kevin DeYoung (Presbyterian), Thabiti Anyabwile (Baptist), and others. 
I attended the 2008 T4G in Louisville, Kentucky, seeing the men I had read for several years joyfully sitting on panels together, despite their important differences. This togetherness was real. But it was also entirely a product of the time. It was in the middle of what Reformed writer Aaron Renn has labeled the 20-year “neutral world” period from 1994 to 2014—a world in which Christianity no longer had a privileged status but was not disfavored. Most everyone in these evangelical circles was a political “conservative” or typical evangelical voter, against abortion and homosexual marriage. Nevertheless, on political questions, the YRR leaders approached politics very differently. Piper was an outspoken Christian pacifist who would have even refused to defend his own family against violence. MacArthur regularly proclaimed his sentiment that “government can’t save you.” In contrast, Mohler (along with thePresbyterians) devoted attention to “engaging” the culture. But in the neutral world these differences were seemingly less pertinent; the glue of their unity was opposition to theological liberalism.
The late Timothy Keller also rose in prominence at this time in communicating the Gospel to coastal elites. His neo-Calvinism spread far and wide among the Gen-X world, establishing an ethos centered on “winsomeness” and a “third-way” politics above (not between, so he claimed) the political left and right. 
Under Keller’s influence, the YRR era was not retreatist but activist—pursuing “cultural engagement” by demonstrating that orthodox faith is the key to a coherent, good, and complete life. The purpose of “public theology” was more evangelistic than political; and most adherents, even if they disapproved of “neutrality” language, still approved of the possibility of debate within a shared public square. That is, entering public discourse offered Christians the chance not so much to win politically as to demonstrate their serenity, through a politics that appeared attractive, heavenly, and pleasantly aloof, and devoid of anxiety, overreaction, and anger. To the urban liberal, this was a quirky but safe political stand that checked the boxes on most “social justice” concerns. 
Hence, Christians who followed Keller’s approach could downplay or overlook questions of political power and focus instead on verbal and aesthetic persuasion. The principle regarding politics, especially for followers of Keller, was that political commentary and activism was an extension of “witness,” not fundamentally a means for good political outcomes. Every decision in ministering this witness tended to defer to whether it resulted in making Christianity attractive to non-believing urbanites. Politics was an extension of cultural apologetics, built around “authenticity” as opposed to the kitschy, suburban “seeker-sensitive” movement of the ’90s. The assumption was that secular people will become dissatisfied with the secular identities on offer and look for a coherent alternative. This approach made sense in that neutral world that no longer exists, where the Christian identity was one viable alternative among competing identities.
The Gospel Coalition (TGC), founded in 2005, exemplified this approach. A “coalition” of likeminded mostly neo-Calvinist churches, TGC served mainly to platform rising stars and to establish an elite evangelicalism. TGC’s long-time (and current) editor in chief, Collin Hansen, who wrote the book Young, Restless, Reformed in 2008, credited Keller’s works on “cultural apologetics” as a driver of the movement. Subsequently, the target engagement-audience for TGC (and neo-Calvinist apologetics in general) has always been urbanites, or at least non-rural residents. Few talked about the need for ministries to rural, working-class whites.
Read More
Related Posts: