Now, since culture defines which words are apropos and which are not, how are such definitions fabricated? If a person is angry and uses a swear-word –substitute (remember the cousin in the Sunday dress), is it a sin? In either case, if a person is angry, does it matter what phonetically comes out of the mouth, or is it the anger behind the word? A person who emits a swear word cousin (the nicest, most culturally acceptable kind) or the most hideous, crass tirade possible is still in sin if the anger allows for it. Out of the heart comes the sin (Mark 7). “Be angry and sin not,” the Psalmist says. “Meditate within your heart on your bed, and be still” (Psalm 4:4). The phonetics are not the sin, the anger behind it is—nor is it a sin to be angry, the way it is handled is the sin—a fit of rage, for example—no matter what comes out of the mouth (Galatians 5:19-21). Still we do well to remember James 3, the whole chapter. “If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body.” James admonishes us to tame our tongues, and in so doing, we will have control over our whole bodies. He tells us not to curse men, and bless God with the same tongue. James is getting at a different point than this essay is, but the principle is: keep your tongue in check, for it is the rudder of the body. Speaking comes from the mind and heart, and out of this comes bodily actions. Just because something enters your mind, it doesn’t mean you should say it! If we can control our tongues, we can train our minds and control our actions.
Now, most Christians label the use of a cuss word as sinful, but the use of one of the cousins is deemed acceptable. Where is the logic in this? You might say, “Well then let’s just use such and such and fill-in-the-blank and all other obscenities in our speech. Say, when describing the David and Bathsheba story.” You miss the point. Who are you to judge another person for what comes out of their mouth in this case? At the same time, the principle in Scripture is that we should honor those who are weak in the faith (Romans 14). So, if you find yourself surrounded by those who cannot handle the use of your lexical freedom, be cautious so as not to offend—per Romans 14. However, let’s consider the possibility that either side may have an issue of maturity. Being mature in the faith sometimes means exercising certain freedoms. Just because someone is opposed to using ‘earthy language’ does not in any way imply that that person is immature. They may, in fact, have made the decision not to use swear words anymore out of the maturing process of sanctification. And, those of the non-cussing persuasion should be more accepting of those who hold different beliefs—so be careful not to judge, fellow Christian. “Bear with one another in love” (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:13). In addition, no one should use their freedom for evil or offense, either (1 Peter 2:16). Winning someone over will not always happen, and in some cases, one should submit to the mature believer who holds convictions against ‘strong language.’ If your brother is distressed because of what you eat [or say], you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating [or cussing] destroy your brother for whom Christ died.” (Romans 14:15). And, It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else [like cuss] that will cause your brother to fall,” (Romans 14:21). Lastly, the one using the argot in question should examine why he uses such jargon.
We should be careful not to offend, but we should also be able to instruct those of the counterbalance what the real issue is: a culturally mandated norm. And who is to say that the cultural standard may not change? For example, in Britain, if I say, “Where are my bloody keys?” An English gentleman may huff, puff and gruff at me. But if I say the same thing in the same situation with the same tone and manner here in the U.S.A., I may not offend a soul at all. On the other hand, there are indeed things in the world that are vile, lewd and crude. We should avoid these things per Galatians 5:19-21. Albeit, sometimes the use of certain words express the emotions or thoughts of the deliverer as no other word would do (like when you spill a bucket of cherries all over the ground—said with a smile of course, because it’s only a bucket of cherries). At the same time, reliance upon the vernacular and persistence in its use should be avoided—as should the judgment against those who choose to use it in certain contexts. Creativity demands an increased vocabulary and such should be pursued. As in most cases, love, wisdom, and balance are key in the use of that which we label “cuss words.” Which is worse, to say scheisse, or to invoke the dwelling place of the holy, infinite, Almighty God (“Oh, for heaven’s sake!”)?
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Language. Show all posts
Sunday, May 2, 2010
On Cussing (Part 3)
But what is a cuss word? I purport that cuss words do not exist in the universal sense. The only real (universal) cuss word is condemned in Exodus 20:7: "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” But what about these other words? Does the Bible tell us which ones to avoid?
Well, no. That would be an impossible task, since language morphs and changes over time, and since the Bible is translated into so many languages. Instead, it is culture that defines other things not explicitly stated in Scripture as wrong (sinful). For example, what we know as the ‘f-word’ is really an acronym found in the Old English law books designating fornication (carnal knowledge) as a crime (check the multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary for a full etymology). This is its denotation. However, it is practically a universal acceptance that the use of the f-word to express anger or disappointment is crass in the utmost above and beyond the use of all other cuss words. The modern person, in using the Old English acronym is not implying a discussion concerning sexual immorality, but rather disappointment with a given situation. This is its connotation. Does that set the f-word free for use among many and all? I don’t think so. After all, there really is something crass about the word, especially when used so flippantly. Malcolm X is known to have said, “A man only curses because he lacks the intelligence to say what’s really on his mind.”
An example of an entirely different, culturally mandated norm will help clarify this discussion. It is the African dowry system. While a man or his family issuing payment for his wife seems repulsive to westerners, the description of it as stated here would seem equally as misrepresented to an African—the dowry is not a payment as much as it is a token of love and appreciation for the in-law family. The dowry is also found in the Old Testament in the descriptive sense, but is not prescriptive. So, culture does sometimes define what is right and wrong in areas where, except in special cases, God’s immutable moral character does not impose itself on the standard of living as mandated for all mankind (worship of idols, murder, lying, etc. ).
The temptation among Christians is to hold those who use the vernacular in scrutiny and derision; their spirituality is in question because of the words coming out of their mouths. But since there is only one actual curse word (using God’s name in vain), judgment should be withheld. Honestly, sometimes only a bad word (one of the many in the full spectrum of bad to worst) can really capture the essence of a given situation, like when you go cherry picking with your dad, and after filling an entire brimming-over-the-rim bucket, carefully bringing it to the farmer’s shanty, and having it weighed and paid for, you set it down and turn to grab another bucket, and in the process kick over the entire pale of ready-to-go cherries. “I think now would be a legitimate time to say (sill in the blank),” you say—but you say it with a smile. After all, it’s only a bucket of cherries. And it’s good for a laugh.
Well, no. That would be an impossible task, since language morphs and changes over time, and since the Bible is translated into so many languages. Instead, it is culture that defines other things not explicitly stated in Scripture as wrong (sinful). For example, what we know as the ‘f-word’ is really an acronym found in the Old English law books designating fornication (carnal knowledge) as a crime (check the multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary for a full etymology). This is its denotation. However, it is practically a universal acceptance that the use of the f-word to express anger or disappointment is crass in the utmost above and beyond the use of all other cuss words. The modern person, in using the Old English acronym is not implying a discussion concerning sexual immorality, but rather disappointment with a given situation. This is its connotation. Does that set the f-word free for use among many and all? I don’t think so. After all, there really is something crass about the word, especially when used so flippantly. Malcolm X is known to have said, “A man only curses because he lacks the intelligence to say what’s really on his mind.”
An example of an entirely different, culturally mandated norm will help clarify this discussion. It is the African dowry system. While a man or his family issuing payment for his wife seems repulsive to westerners, the description of it as stated here would seem equally as misrepresented to an African—the dowry is not a payment as much as it is a token of love and appreciation for the in-law family. The dowry is also found in the Old Testament in the descriptive sense, but is not prescriptive. So, culture does sometimes define what is right and wrong in areas where, except in special cases, God’s immutable moral character does not impose itself on the standard of living as mandated for all mankind (worship of idols, murder, lying, etc. ).
The temptation among Christians is to hold those who use the vernacular in scrutiny and derision; their spirituality is in question because of the words coming out of their mouths. But since there is only one actual curse word (using God’s name in vain), judgment should be withheld. Honestly, sometimes only a bad word (one of the many in the full spectrum of bad to worst) can really capture the essence of a given situation, like when you go cherry picking with your dad, and after filling an entire brimming-over-the-rim bucket, carefully bringing it to the farmer’s shanty, and having it weighed and paid for, you set it down and turn to grab another bucket, and in the process kick over the entire pale of ready-to-go cherries. “I think now would be a legitimate time to say (sill in the blank),” you say—but you say it with a smile. After all, it’s only a bucket of cherries. And it’s good for a laugh.
On Cussing (Part 2)
But the real deal is that cuss words are defined by the culture in which they exist. And as cultures progress in defining what is the norm, cuss words may become standard, acceptable and expected. As the vernacular is used more and more in popular culture, momentum demands that over time, the words are no longer labeled as unacceptable; no thought is given to what is said because of the abundant use—the culture has re-defined right and wrong use of language.
Still, popular culture accepts it as a fact that cuss words used in conjunction with anger denote the utter seriousness of the person saying the word, whereas ardent anger minus cuss words would not normally be considered as livid as the former by comparison. Culture accepts cussing as normal in most places now—except from religious people. Religious people—people who are zealous for their faith and purpose to live it—are expected to not use cuss words—which only proves that those of the norm (non-religious, including many nominally religious) know that cuss words are indeed ‘bad’—sometimes.
Words have both a connotation and a denotation. The denotation of a cuss word (its primary definition) can be a legitimate use of describing a situation or thing. It is primarily the connotation (the implied meaning) that is used in the curse-word-hoard of the people in our culture. The connotation has nothing to do necessarily with the denotation of the word but is used superlatively to describe a situation or thing (or person). Declaring a situation or thing (or person) superlatively with a cuss word does not necessarily use the denotation, for in many cases that would not make sense. If someone calls another person a pile of animal waste, it is the connotation that is used. The connotation sounds offensive because, as it deviates from the denotation, it can carry lasting, picturesque implications. In this situation, one person is saying of another, that he is worthless, and even more so, he stinks, too. Thus, the connotation carries a meaning equivalent of any interpretation or synonym that the persons listening would not only understand, but deem as acceptable language in describing the character of someone.
“Cussing” is therefore simply a cultural stigma that defines what a curse word is and what is not. The important factor is that in some cases, culture defines what is acceptable and what is not, what is good and what is not, what is sin and what is not (drinking alcohol, eating meat sacrificed to idols, and other habits of life labeled as ‘taboo’). Philippians 3:8 is a prime example of Paul’s use of pejorative language when he says he considers all things (his religious repertoire) as dung (Greek= skubala) compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Jesus Christ his Lord. Skubala carries a picturesque ‘human excrement,’ which in the koine Greek of Paul’s day—the vernacular of the ‘common people,’ is the equivalent of emitting that which most American denote as a swear word (however in Germany the use of this word is ubiquitous and considered apropos for many a situation). This illustration shows how cultures can mandate sinful speech even when the Scripture does not lay out an exact design of what is moral or not. In other words, the translators of the New Testament know that for skubala to carry its full force would offend lots of grandmothers. Because of this sensitivity, translators write “dung” instead of well, something a little stronger.
Still, popular culture accepts it as a fact that cuss words used in conjunction with anger denote the utter seriousness of the person saying the word, whereas ardent anger minus cuss words would not normally be considered as livid as the former by comparison. Culture accepts cussing as normal in most places now—except from religious people. Religious people—people who are zealous for their faith and purpose to live it—are expected to not use cuss words—which only proves that those of the norm (non-religious, including many nominally religious) know that cuss words are indeed ‘bad’—sometimes.
Words have both a connotation and a denotation. The denotation of a cuss word (its primary definition) can be a legitimate use of describing a situation or thing. It is primarily the connotation (the implied meaning) that is used in the curse-word-hoard of the people in our culture. The connotation has nothing to do necessarily with the denotation of the word but is used superlatively to describe a situation or thing (or person). Declaring a situation or thing (or person) superlatively with a cuss word does not necessarily use the denotation, for in many cases that would not make sense. If someone calls another person a pile of animal waste, it is the connotation that is used. The connotation sounds offensive because, as it deviates from the denotation, it can carry lasting, picturesque implications. In this situation, one person is saying of another, that he is worthless, and even more so, he stinks, too. Thus, the connotation carries a meaning equivalent of any interpretation or synonym that the persons listening would not only understand, but deem as acceptable language in describing the character of someone.
“Cussing” is therefore simply a cultural stigma that defines what a curse word is and what is not. The important factor is that in some cases, culture defines what is acceptable and what is not, what is good and what is not, what is sin and what is not (drinking alcohol, eating meat sacrificed to idols, and other habits of life labeled as ‘taboo’). Philippians 3:8 is a prime example of Paul’s use of pejorative language when he says he considers all things (his religious repertoire) as dung (Greek= skubala) compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Jesus Christ his Lord. Skubala carries a picturesque ‘human excrement,’ which in the koine Greek of Paul’s day—the vernacular of the ‘common people,’ is the equivalent of emitting that which most American denote as a swear word (however in Germany the use of this word is ubiquitous and considered apropos for many a situation). This illustration shows how cultures can mandate sinful speech even when the Scripture does not lay out an exact design of what is moral or not. In other words, the translators of the New Testament know that for skubala to carry its full force would offend lots of grandmothers. Because of this sensitivity, translators write “dung” instead of well, something a little stronger.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
On Cussing (Part 1)
Frequently, from people’s mouths are emitted certain words, and those of the norm stand in judgment, shock or disappointment (or all three simultaneously, or a combination any two) labeling such perpetrators as deviant. Of course, it all depends on the context of the situation. When people cuss, they are often in the norm of culture, but they are also deviant in that such language is not considered proper say, during professional meetings (except out west, or in Detroit) or in front of children or kindly grandmothers.
When some people cuss, like the man in the lumber yard whose lifestyle permits such language because his peers do the same and they hold the same interests (a lascivious lifestyle of drinking, smoking, carousing and blasphemy), such language is accepted as the norm but subconsciously known as ‘bad.’ After all, one would not accept Joe Blue Collar’s behavior if he spoke in such a manner to his child’s kindergarten teacher. So then, cussing is considered inappropriate in certain contexts—even if those who use such deviance accept it as the norm in their own culture. It’s not limited to factory workers, though. This deviance is predominant in what people consider more sophisticated (white-collar) culture as well. ‘Deviance,’ as a matter of fact, is an offensive and often moot term because of the moral relativism in which our culture is inculcated. To wit, Hollywood frequently commends cussing and other forms of deviant behavior in their movies and t.v. shows—because “that’s reality.”
And it is. Reality is, the world at large uses ‘cuss words.’ And we know which ones they are—and which ones they aren’t: the real ones have twin sisters who are nicer and wear flowery dresses—especially on Sundays. But not all of the nicer sisters are equally nice; these good kin exist on the whole spectrum of kind, sweet and harmless, to edging dangerously close to the bad sisters. Consequently, some of the good sisters don’t like to associate themselves with those of their own clique, because the others are so close to the bad side of the family. Maybe the good cuss words should be called cousins of the bad sisters instead, and the ‘badder’ good cuss words could be called not-as-bad sisters of the bad cuss words. Gosh, darn, heck, oh my word (a blasphemy?), frick, frickin’, they progressivly move from pleasing and denominative of good character, to ill-fated and almost as offensive as the real thing.
When some people cuss, like the man in the lumber yard whose lifestyle permits such language because his peers do the same and they hold the same interests (a lascivious lifestyle of drinking, smoking, carousing and blasphemy), such language is accepted as the norm but subconsciously known as ‘bad.’ After all, one would not accept Joe Blue Collar’s behavior if he spoke in such a manner to his child’s kindergarten teacher. So then, cussing is considered inappropriate in certain contexts—even if those who use such deviance accept it as the norm in their own culture. It’s not limited to factory workers, though. This deviance is predominant in what people consider more sophisticated (white-collar) culture as well. ‘Deviance,’ as a matter of fact, is an offensive and often moot term because of the moral relativism in which our culture is inculcated. To wit, Hollywood frequently commends cussing and other forms of deviant behavior in their movies and t.v. shows—because “that’s reality.”
And it is. Reality is, the world at large uses ‘cuss words.’ And we know which ones they are—and which ones they aren’t: the real ones have twin sisters who are nicer and wear flowery dresses—especially on Sundays. But not all of the nicer sisters are equally nice; these good kin exist on the whole spectrum of kind, sweet and harmless, to edging dangerously close to the bad sisters. Consequently, some of the good sisters don’t like to associate themselves with those of their own clique, because the others are so close to the bad side of the family. Maybe the good cuss words should be called cousins of the bad sisters instead, and the ‘badder’ good cuss words could be called not-as-bad sisters of the bad cuss words. Gosh, darn, heck, oh my word (a blasphemy?), frick, frickin’, they progressivly move from pleasing and denominative of good character, to ill-fated and almost as offensive as the real thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)