Warning: this post is rated PG-13 for language. If you find strong language deeply offensive, please come back tomorrow.
But really, the offense of strong language is the point. Sometimes life needs to be rated PG-13 for language. Because the reality of life rarely lives up to its Rated-G billing (better: the Rated G fascade we Christians sometimes want to erect over it).
I’ve been poring over A Serious Man in anticipation of my world-changing SBL paper, “New Country for Old Men: Biblical Wisdom Traditions in Coen Brothers Filmography.” This movie echoes Job at many points. It wrestles with the reality of a world where life 
comes apart at the seams–and yet where God is believed to be active to give and to take away.
Often, the experience of the world’s privations is worse when we believe that the hand of God is sovereign and active. It wraps up God within the causality of our disappointments and pains.
The agony of this assumption of divine intervention is captured in all its rawness in the scene of Larry and his brother Arthur by the pool (warning: strong language begins here):
LARRY
(HISSING)
Arthur!
You’ve got to pull yourself together!ARTHUR
It’s all shit, LARRY! It’s all shit!LARRY
Arthur. Don’t use that word.ARTHUR
It’s all fucking shit!LARRY
Arthur! Come on!ARTHUR
Look at everything Hashem has given you! And what do I
get! I get fucking shit!LARRY
Arthur. What do I have. I live at the Jolly Roger.ARTHUR
You’ve got a family. You’ve got a job. Hashem hasn’t
given me bupkes.LARRY
It’s not fair to blame Hashem, Arthur. Please. Sometimes
-please calm down-sometimes you have to help your-
self.ARTHUR
Don’t blame me! You fucker!LARRY
Arthur. Please.ARTHUR
Hashem hasn’t given me shit. Now I can’t even play cards.LARRY
Arthur. This isn’t the right forum. Please. Not by the
pool.
Arthur weeps.
Arthur… It’s okay… It’s okay…
“Don’t use that word.”
Despite his circumstances, Larry is trying to cling to a world where people get what they deserve–even as he sees that it’s not true in his own case. And despite his circumstances, Larry (somewhat Job-like) will not curse in his wrestling with God.
But Arthur will.
Why is this scene so important? For the movie, for reality, there is a place to cry out in vitriolic protest against the injustice of the world. There is a place for raising our voices to God and telling God that the world where “God’s favor shines upon the righteous” and “the traps of the wicked spring upon themselves” is not the world in which we find ourselves from day to day.
So at the risk of justifying what is often frivolous behavior, I want to say that dropping s-bombs and f-bombs is sometimes an important response of Christian faithfulness to the God who has power over all things, and yet has not made all things just and good in the world as we experience it.
This is the biblical practice of lament: to look at what is wrong with the world, stand by it, and call out to God for a transformation of the cosmos such that it reflects the goodness of God. We will not let go of the reality of a sovereign Lord enthroned at God’s right hand. We cannot deny the failure of the world to embody the grace and righteousness by which this Lord and his God would be known.
And so, we lament.
And sometimes, this means crying out with all the boldness we can muster.
And even an f-bomb or two.
Cool! Let it fly.
The Uncertainty Principle. It proves we can’t ever really know… what’s going on. So, it shouldn’t bother you not being able to figure anything out. Although you will be responsible for this on the mid-term.
Yes, there’s a reason to rage!
How does the use of bad language ever glorify God? It doesn’t and never will. It is okay to express ourselves to God when we are hurting. It is probably even therapeutic but it does not glorify God. God already knows our situation and our hurting. Our crying out to him brings him glory because we know that only he can alleviate and heal our pain. He is the only solution. This glorifies him. There is no reason to taint this with the use of bad/strong language.
I think there’s more to participation in the hurt of the world than “therapeutic expression.” Crying out on the world’s behalf is taking our part in the story, the part God has assigned God’s people, of standing with the broken and calling on God to fix what is not right. It is, in other words, a faithful embodiment of the part in the story that God has given to us. Yes, we trust he can solve it. But we also (if the psalms and Jesus’ own cries are any indication) articulate the fullness of what is wrong–and that God is the one who should have never let it get this way.
Is strong language over-used? Yes, it is over-used in our culture. But does that mean that it is a “taint” anytime it is used? I don’t think so. The point, rather, is that the taint already exists in the world that we experience, and using what might seem “tainted” is sometimes the only way to accurately communicate that. Cf. James’ comment below.
1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, (15) but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, (16) since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”
Please explain what you mean when you say that “God is the one who should have never let it get this way”. In what way are you blaming God? The world is corrupted because of sin. Jesus came to cleanse it already. What more is there to do?
I have an issue with the way that our language is automatically moderated as soon as we walk into church. No obviously not suitable around children but surely in church is where we should be authentically ourselves more then anywhere. And yet it is the place that we put on the most masks, and pretend we don’t sometimes say forbidden words etc.
And as you say sometimes the only true, only authentic response to a world that suffers from such imperfection is perhaps one that requires a language that can capture the harshness.
What about the fact that as Christians God has created a new us? The old us, the one that conforms to the world, is gone and when it surfaces it is our falling back into what we once were. He is not glorified when our sinfulness comes out and we revert back to our old worldly habits. He demands better from his people knowing that they will falter but his standard never changes. An authentic response to whatever the situation is does not require the use of bad/foul language to convey its seriousness to God. He already knows.
Ah, Daniel, you have spoken my heart. The church does not know how to lament and when we start talking about *real* lament, the legalism starts flying, as witnessed by some of the comments here.
When my husband and I were separated and it looked like divorce was impending, I would lie at the foot of the wooden cross I have and cry out, “What the fuck are You doing, God?” I know that image might be offensive to some, but I can’t imagine a better place to be that real than at the foot of the cross. Sometimes we have got to be guttural. Sometimes it’s the only way to get the real pain up and out.
To Tom — did David’s asking God to kill his enemies’ babies “glorify God”? But David was a man after God’s heart, ACCORDING TO GOD. And he was an adulterer and murderer too. Seems to me what brings God glory is a life truly lived before Him, engaging with Him on every level, including gut-wrenching pain. We don’t need to sanitize ourselves before the One who knows every hair on our heads.
Life is fucking hard here on planet earth and I, for one, am glad that some Christians aren’t afraid to say it to God and to each other…and when the world starts to see us as real people with real pain who don’t have it all together, they might actually be interested to find out about this God we love who loves them, f-bombs and all.
Nina,
I don’t understand some of your comments. I would appreciate some clarification.
You said “Seems to me what brings God glory is a life truly lived before Him, engaging with Him on every level, including gut-wrenching pain. We don’t need to sanitize ourselves before the One who knows every hair on our heads.”
What do you mean by a “life truly lived before him”? How do we “engage God” on any level other than his?
We don’t sanitize ourselves before God. In fact, we can’t….that is why Jesus came. He justified us in God’s site by paying the penalty for our sins. Our attempts amount to nothing more than works righteousness and God rejects them. Only his cleansing is good enough.
I agree life is hard and it will get harder but I don’t see how that justifies our use of bad language. God already knows we are sinners. We don’t have to sin more in order to prove to him that we are “real people with real pain”.
I meant being authentic before God. It’s not about proving anything it…it’s about not pretending. It’s about not being any better than we really are.
I don’t think using the f-word is a sin. Now taking God’s name in vain…*that’s* a sin.
James 3:6-12 And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. (7) For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, (8) but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. (9) With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. (10) From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. (11) Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? (12) Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
Scripture makes it clear that a person who claims to be a Christian should not be using foul language. How can we praise God in one moment and curse the next?
Also, even though people may put on appearances in church they can’t do so with God. God looks to the heart. We can’t ever be anything but authentic with God. To think otherwise is just fooling ourselves. So, i think you are proposing a distinction without a difference.
Nina is correct throughout this exchange.
Please explain using the Scriptures.
Tom,
The passage in James that you cite (and many others regarding the tongue – cf Ephesians 4, Proverbs) have much more to do with how we talk about people than with what specific words we use. This doesn’t mean that we ought to swear as voraciously as we may want to; we should always be thoughtful with our speech. But it does mean that the view of language that the Scriptures promotes is concerned with how it affects the dignity of people, not what words we use when we cry out to God.
Tom:
The intent behind the word is clearly what God is concerned with. If a Christian uses the F-word to insult, demean or curse (in the sense of wishing evil or bad luck upon) someone else, then I am confident God would view it as a sin.
However, this is certainly not the only use of what you are terming as ‘curse’ words and which are more accurately called swear words. Swear words can and are sometimes used to curse people, but they are not exclusively used in this manner; in fact, they are rarely used this way. Swear words are overwhelming used as everyday substitutes for less impactfull language.
One might exclaim that the movie they just saw was “fucking awesome!” or that it was the “shit baby!” In this use of the term the speaker’s heart is expressing joy, excitement and exhilaration–simply put, there is no sin in this type of language.
Language is a product of the tongue and as you have deftly pointed out with your use of scripture the tongue can be the barer of evil. The controlling classes of societies have for thousands of years used language to oppress the subordinate classes, by making it unacceptable to speak in ‘strong tones’ or use ‘strong language’ that challenges the deference that they expect to be addressed with.
The last time I checked God was not down with the oppression of the weak!
What I mean is this: The controlling classes determine which words are okay for public and professional use and which are unacceptable. They decide that a movie can be “freaking awesome” and not “fucking awesome.” Get my drift?
Thus, if single mom working at Wallmart is talking to her peers in the lunch room it is okay for her to exclaim that she feels she is being “shit on by the corporation” when her hours are being kept at a level just below where the company would have to pay her benefits. None of her peers are going to have a problem with that language. However, if she was to go to her boss and complain that their treatment of her felt “fucking unfair” to her and was making her work life and attitude “shity,” then they would likely refuse to speak with her or even reprimand her in some way for using foul language with them; even though in each usage the ‘swear’ words are used as adjectives to describe her feelings and attitudes and were in no way directed in an offensive manner towards her employer.
Anyone who has ever been frustrated with civil service bureaucracy while in a long line at some public office will understand the importance of following these rules.
Swear words and slang or street dialects (like cockney in the UK) sprout up out of resistance to such oppression. The subordinate classes develop their own ways of using the language of the status quo as a means of stepping out from under this oppression. Thus, they signify that the status quo defined swear word “fuck” can mean a multitude of things depending on the context. This takes back control of language, because the it is the masses who are the subordinate classes and their mode of speaking will eventually become the trend and normal use, which forces the controlling class to scramble to change their definitions of explicit language in order to maintain dominance. Hence, at one point the word “bloody” was not permitted in the British Parliament and is now frequently used.
If you still don’t think that the context defines the meaning of the word we could discuss Derrida’s theories of deferred meaning. But that might be too lengthy for this section.
I would also encourage you to consider words from other languages. For instance, you would likely be okay with me telling my son who is being pesty and goofy that he is a silly bugger. But if one was to use the word bugger in the British Parliament you would get thrown out! The context for me in my house with my son makes my usage synonymous with pesty. In the queen’s English bugger still refers to buggery or sodomy. Whereas, in the 14th century it meant heresy.
Nina and others seem to be talking about usages which are not harmful to others. It does not hurt, offend, insult or curse God in any way to cry out to him that you are “fucking confused” at how things are going. God knows your heart, which means he knows you mean ‘massively confused’ in a manner that matches the strength of your desperation.
The tongue is important, but as scripture points out to us, the heart is equally so. And thus, I would argue that the heart puts the tongue into context.
Christians and the church should not participate in the oppression of the masses, this I believe the Bible makes clear. Therefore, if we or people amongst us need to express their selves in strong non-cursing language then we should allow them to do so free of our judgement.
This form of linguistic judgement I am addressing is a form of elitism and only serves to make Christians look hypocritical because everyone knows that in our heart we are in the same place when we say “shoot” upon striking our finger with a hammer as when we say “shit.” Equally so, to say in frustration “oh pickle” is the same as saying “oh damn” or even “oh fuck.” When one thinks ‘fuck’ but says ‘fuddle-duddle’ the only difference is one word abides by the rules of language as determined by those with the power to determine such things and one does not–the heart is same in each case.
3 f-bombs is not PG-13, it’s clearly R.
I freaking love the Coen brothers, I’ve seen every movie they’ve made. Please post a link to your paper on the site when you’re done. I look forward to it with great anticipation.
I hope you also cover Jesus as lord of the Sabbath
“Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don’t work, I don’t drive a car, I don’t f* ride in a car, I don’t handle money, I don’t turn on the oven, and I sure as s* don’t f* roll!”
But seriously, this is something I’ve been bothered by more and more, the christian desire to sugar coat the world. I used to be obsessed with it myself. Tens of thousands of children are dying of starvation, and this doesn’t warrant an expletive? Real bad stuff is happening, let’s not trivilize life by mixing culturally acceptable language with cries for justice and people who are in real suffering.
And besides even Jesus and the apostle Paul resorted to some rough language to make their points. See Jesus’ comments on poopin’ out unclean food, and Paul counts everything in this life as poop compared to Christ.
So agree. Reminds me of something Tony Campolo said — “I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.”
Thanks Daniel,
reminds me of this from William Stringfellow
The event of prayer, certain acts called prayer, the very word ‘prayer’ have gathered such ridiculous associations. That is not only the case with the obscene performances, which pass as public prayer, at inaugurations, in locker rooms, before Rotary luncheons, and in many churchly sanctuaries, but also the practice of private prayer is attended by gross profanity, the most primitive superstitions, and sentimentality which is truly asinine…. When I write that my own situation [during my illness] in those months of pain and decision can be described as prayer, I do not only recall that during that time I sometimes read the Psalms and they became my psalms, or that, as I have also mentioned, I occasionally cried ‘Jesus’ and that name was my prayer, but I mean that I also at times would shout ‘Fuck!’ and that was no obscenity, but a most earnest prayerful utterance” (A Second Birthday, pp. 99, 108-9).
Truly sad
Awesome reference to Stringfellow here. Thank you.
Brilliant.
And that scene is so powerful, with Larry fighting against all reality to hold on to some world of pretended innocence. It seems that with this film the Coen’s conception of all things comes to its fullest and most brilliant expression.
I find this conversation very interesting, but I think those who are willing to carry their cross, and become crucified in the flesh will know and understand the sweetness of life which lies on the other side of death. That of the resurrected life.. If we want to remain in this world we will react the way the world reacts. I can not condemn a man for swearing it his nature, but my lord does not allow such things to come from His lips.. and He is the one I choose to follow..
Tom, do you think the words we consider “swearing” existed when those texts were written?
Justin:
Since modern English did not exist in Biblical times I would say the words we consider swearing did not exist when the texts were written. The Biblical texts prohibit cursing not specific swear words. So I guess I don’t see the relevance to the question.
I was tracking my Sunday school class about laments this past Sunday. Appropriate timing, thanks.
Hi All,
I found this post quite interesting and stimulating. Unfortunately the Christian School that I went to would never have allowed for such discussions. The line of reasoning a la Tom Sheldon is something I’m familiar with my whole life. Ironically, those who hold such laminated versions of Christianity will zero in on the foul language part, that is until something inexplicable happens to them and they end up using the very words they’ve condescendingly wagged their finger at.
Zeroing in on the bad language is missing the point altogether. I can be as insulting, crude and morally bad using benign language. Such euphemisms are circumlocutions around crude and vulgar use of language. The irony is that God may be even more incensed at a euphemism spoken with evil intent that a cry of rage and desperation laced with profanity. Intent is more important than correct use of language.
I should point Tom Sheldon to the fact the Paul uses a rare, but very strong Greek word, “skubala” (Phillipians 3:8), to describe all his knowledge of Judaism. Knowing Paul, in this context, he was not politely using a euphemism to express his thoughts on everything else compared to Christ.
I do not condone the use of foul language, but sometimes, due to the human condition, it rises up and bubbles over. So as Luther might have put it, “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”
Yuri
You said so eloquently my sentiments exactly. It’s not the words, it’s the heart. Crying “fuck!” out of anguish isn’t “cursing” God or anyone.
So far I am seeing lots of people sharing their opinions on the matter but nobody has yet gone to Scripture to make a case that for it being okay for believers to use bad language.
What the heck?
What the hecks are you looking for here Tommy? The David example is a great one. A man after God’s own heart and yet he liked to watch women bathe. David also lamented his existence in this unjust world on a couple occasions. If you’re looking for someone to quote a verse that says, “You know what go ahead and cuss whenever ya want. Shirt happens,” then you win, no such verse exists. But that’s not really the point of all this is it?
Ronald:
That is exactly the point. The Bible is our sole infallible rule of faith. It is the final authority on all matters of faith. On matters that it expressly addresses we are not free to ignore them or do otherwise.
The Bible expressly prohibits his people from using such language…in no place does it allow it. No matter the circumstances the person is facing. God is not surprised to hear of our circumstances and he is not wondering what we will do in response. In fact, he uses our trials and tribulations to draw us closer to him.
The Bible is filled the the accounts of God’s people sinning but nowhere does it instruct us or allow us to commit those sins because they did. Those accounts are given to us to show that even though they sinned God still loves them and will forgive them if they repent. David lusted and Peter cussed and denied knowing Jesus but God forgave them and still used them. He can and will to the same for us if we cuss but we must repent and stop doing it the same as we have to stop committing any other sin we are prone to commit. We could name many others from scripture but there is no need.
We come back to the question of what our primary purpose is. We are created to glorify God. Anything we do that falls short of our purpose is sin and must be corrected, abandoned, abolished, or changed so that we can get back into the right relationship with our creator. Using bad language, no matter the circumstance, is prohibited and does not glorify God and therefore should not be done. That is the point.
Egads.
Thank you. This speaks on a much deeper level than just the words we use. The right to protest, even to protest God, seems to never fly in Christian circles. I love what you mentioned in the comments above about how protest is a “faithful embodiment” of our part of the story. This is incredibly liberating. There’s so much more to authentic relationship (not speaking strictly in the personal/individual sense) with God than only praise and thanks.