Ship of Fools: How appropriate are expletives in explaining Christianity?

Thread: How appropriate are expletives in explaining Christianity? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024520

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

The question really is about how far it is helpful to adopt colloquial language, including expletives, and has been raised in my mind by reading Francis Spufford's book "Unapologetic".

I like the book but it's plain where he stands on this as he defines sin as the human propensity to fuck things up, and indeed one of the set (shit, fuck,bugger) graces most pages.

Whilst not averse to the use of expletives, I rather view this as a fault, especially when you have no check on whether they offend people. If someone is offended by the language of Billy Connelly, then they really should not tune in. But you don't expect this fucking language from a book advocating, Christianity. And it is a good book but flawed by the Fwords.

Any thoughts?

[ 21. December 2012, 16:11: Message edited by: anteater ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I think the use of expletives by stereotypically "square" people(teachers, clergymen etc) always has a rather forced, overly self-concious quality about it. "Look at me! I'm exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be swearing, but here I am swearing!! #%*@ yeah!!"

But I'm biased. One of my teachers in high-school, old hippie type, always made a big point about hurling out the f-word etc in class(including Religion), and my friends and I always firgured he was trying too hard to be cool. It did make him kind of hard to take seriously, as did his habit of saying insulting things about other teachers in front of his students.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Sometimes, "I fucked up" is the only way to say it.

That said, putting it in a book (and apparently repeatedly) strikes me as a shallow attempt to appear daring or on the cutting edge. I'm not offended as a Christian- I am offended as a "younger" (by church standards early 30s is young, right?) person who the author might be trying to impress with his use of profanity. If you don't have challenging new ideas, don't try to cover it up by using colloquial language. Your effort to look like you are challenging the old guard isn't fooling anyone.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I find it OK, as I talk that way myself, as do most of my friends. However, I can see the point about offending. I restrain myself on this forum, I suppose, so as not to offend. Maybe I am a fucking saint, who knows?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think in a face to face situation it would be easier to judge whether the person concerned was using such language to strike a pose, or as a natural form of expression. It's probably less appropriate in a book, especially of that nature.

Having said that, Philip Larkin's famous line 'They fuck you up, your mum and dad' couldn't really be expressed any other way. Ysenda Maxtone-Graham, who wrote a book about the C of E called The Church Hesitant, mentions a cleric who quoted that line in a sermon, but in a bowdlerised form. She felt, as I do, that was a cop-out.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

If nothing else, it's highly colloquial, which I find off-putting in books, especially books trying to sell people on Christianity, but maybe there's some demographic that likes it.

I think expletives can be very useful sometimes, but they lose their force if they're overused. Using language carelessly doesn't seem like a good way to share the faith of the Word made flesh.

But expletives don't offend me.

And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Piling on with the general theme here, I agree that in most cases it seems to me a lame attempt at "relevance" that instead comes across as simply adolescent meaningless dribble ("boobs!" "poop!" weiner!"). There are notable exceptions when it feels authentic-- the glorious Anne Lamott with her practically incessant f-bombs comes to mind. But that's the rub: it's gotta be authentic, attempts to imitate it expose you as a poser.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I've often recommended The Real Live Preacher to people, with the first read to be "The Preacher's Story" which unfolds his loss of faith and return in a very readable form.

But there are some who will simply give up reading (despite the quality of his writing) because, at one point, he writes "They said the equivalent of "fuck it" and went to do it anyway".

This giving-up seems to me to be rather childish or petulant, and it definitely implies that Christians are too good to be dealing with the Real World of those outside the Church.

It wasn't as if the seven pages of decent, clear writing was laced with profanity. Apart from the word "bullshit" appearing, he does say "I must have had the classic, “Young chaplain just got the shit kicked out of him” look because people left me alone." at the time his faith-base fell apart (read the story) Hardly enough to raise an eyebrow, I would have thought.

(And he does have a comment in there about the Christians who live sequestered away from the Real World, so that no-one understands them, BTW)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
If nothing else, it's highly colloquial, which I find off-putting in books, especially books trying to sell people on Christianity, but maybe there's some demographic that likes it.

I think expletives can be very useful sometimes, but they lose their force if they're overused. Using language carelessly doesn't seem like a good way to share the faith of the Word made flesh.

But expletives don't offend me.

And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference.

I've written a few books myself, and I'm pretty sure that there has been a big shift towards the colloquial in different kinds of books. Some people ascribe it to feminism, and 'the personal is political', but I am skeptical about that. I just think there has been a shift away from the formal. In some ways, there has been a 'confessional' slant in many books.

His book seems to garnering plenty of attention, but I doubt because of the f-words. I would think he is deliberately writing in a personal and informal way.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst not averse to the use of expletives, I rather view this as a fault, especially when you have no check on whether they offend people.

There are people who know you're not talking to them if you don't use expletives. If expletives are a usual part of how you communicate and a usual part of the usage of your intended audience, then you damn well better use them. If others don't like it, too bad. There are plenty of books about Christianity for them.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Churchgeek wrote:

quote:

And, Stetson, I hear it from priests all the time - but not in public discourse (sermons, writings, statements to the press, etc.). I think that's the difference. [/QB]

Yeah, it doesn't have the same grating quality of fabricated edginess when used in more informal settings, if that's how the person would normally talk.

In related news, a Canadian MP has just had to swear off twitter after unleashing a series of tweets that included the f-word. Though it seems to be his use of the phrase "rat-faced whores" that is garnering the most attention.

[ 21. December 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Well, it would be an improvement if he swears off Twitter rather than on.

I assume he is a Conservative not used to having anyone question him.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Having said that, Philip Larkin's famous line 'They fuck you up, your mum and dad' couldn't really be expressed any other way. Ysenda Maxtone-Graham, who wrote a book about the C of E called The Church Hesitant, mentions a cleric who quoted that line in a sermon, but in a bowdlerised form. She felt, as I do, that was a cop-out.

That reminds me of an article in the American magzzine Spin, about Monty Python, that referred to one of their characters as Mrs. Knickerbocker.

Suffice to say the bowdelrization pretty much takes the punch out of the skit's characterization of the woman, as well as the reference to Rhodesia.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But I'm biased. One of my teachers in high-school, old hippie type, always made a big point about hurling out the f-word etc in class(including Religion), and my friends and I always firgured he was trying too hard to be cool. It did make him kind of hard to take seriously, as did his habit of saying insulting things about other teachers in front of his students.

I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I once used the word "shit" metaphorically in conversation with my Dad, he went into such shock at hearing that word from me he didn't hear the content of what I was saying.

And that's the risk. Words we expect in some environments can be uncomfortable to hear in another, and detract from the message.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think the use of expletives by stereotypically "square" people(teachers, clergymen etc) always has a rather forced, overly self-concious quality about it. "Look at me! I'm exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be swearing, but here I am swearing!! #%*@ yeah!!"

You weren't at our staff party last night - the swearing was very natural! Just because children never hear teachers swear doesn't mean teachers never swear.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I've no personal objection to the swearing in Francis Spufford's book, though I'm interested to see what my father in law thinks of it (he asked for the book for Christmas).
In this case I'd assume the author had a strong personal need to employ a writing style as far removed from that of his parents as he could possibly manage. His mother, a Cambridge academic, wrote an outstanding semi-autobiographical work on Christianity and suffering in 1989. Francis' upbringing was very privileged in some ways and very traumatic in others.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

"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."
- Tony Campolo

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I would also say that using 'I fucked up' is different from saying 'fucking idiots' or the like. I would be more comfortable with the former than the latter on the whole, especially in writing. I do swear more than I used to (for example at idiot drivers and when I drop a lightbulb from the top of a ladder while trying to change a bulb in a chandalier) and that's some kind of release for the stupid thing. 'I fucked up' is strong earthy language which gets the gravity of the situation over more than 'I messed up'. Sometimes these words can get the point across, the problem is when the argument about whether you should have used them obscures the point (cf Tony Campolo). But there is a culture issue here, in Christian circles (well most of them) 'I fucked up' will raise eyebrows, whereas in many secular contexts it won't be. I do wonder if the 'Chrstians don't swear' thing is in danger of being a painted sepulchre issue, caught up on the appearance of things not the substance?

Carys (now, will I get a PM from Barrea berating me for using these terms)

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.

Kids are smart enough to know that adults swear. They are also smart enough to know that you address your friends differently than you address people you have a formal relationship with, like a teacher. When the teacher addresses you like a friend, it just seems a little off.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

Amused that Justinian posted the Tony Campolo anecdote as I made passing reference to it, so that the anecdote in fact appears before my post!

Carys

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.

If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?

Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.

A question to all ministers who swear in private conversations: would you be happy for all your congregation to be aware of your worst language? How about doing it in a supermarket check out queue in front of soem 7 year olds?

No? Then why do it at all? [It wouldn't be the first time I've asked people not to swear when I've been out with my children - frankly as someone who once worked as a labourer and in city dealing rooms I've heard enoughbad language to last a lifetime. It all sounds sort of pathetic from educated people as if they are trying to prove something].

In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church. If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.

He doesn't come across that way to me at all. First off, he's not trying to be rude. He's trying to be shocking. And he is being shocking for a very specific reason: to show his audience that they are shocked about the wrong things. He wasn't trying to draw their attention to the problem of injustice. He was trying to draw their attention to their own misguided priorities and programmed feelings.

In short your reading misses the point he was trying to make, the means by which he did it, why that means was necessary, and why it worked.

[ 21. December 2012, 22:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.

If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?

Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.

A question to all ministers who swear in private conversations: would you be happy for all your congregation to be aware of your worst language? How about doing it in a supermarket check out queue in front of soem 7 year olds?

No? Then why do it at all? [It wouldn't be the first time I've asked people not to swear when I've been out with my children - frankly as someone who once worked as a labourer and in city dealing rooms I've heard enoughbad language to last a lifetime. It all sounds sort of pathetic from educated people as if they are trying to prove something].

In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church. If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????

St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him [Biased]

Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job - and don't forget that what constitutes profanity has changed a huge amount over the centuries. Time was when 'by His nails' was far more offensive than 'fuck'.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.
He doesn't come across that way to me at all. First off, he's not trying to be rude. He's trying to be shocking. And he is being shocking for a very specific reason: to show his audience that they are shocked about the wrong things. He wasn't trying to draw their attention to the problem of injustice. He was trying to draw their attention to their own misguided priorities and programmed feelings.

In short your reading misses the point he was trying to make, the means by which he did it, why that means was necessary, and why it worked.

And part of why the Campolo quote worked is that he doesn't cuss all the time. He doesn't cuss just to draw attention or look cool. So that when he used it in this particular instance it drew attention (well, at least some people's attn) to precisely the point-- that we* care about all the wrong things.

*(the context of the quote is a speech at a conservative evangelical Bible school)

[ 21. December 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????

Um, no. No he don't. It's just one usage of the gloriously-versatile word (noun, verb, adjective) *fuck* - in this instance meaning *fucked in the head* i.e. psychologically damaged.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's one thing if you can't control your language and swear all the time. If you don't, then it's clearly contextual and you can then choose to use it or not.

I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't swear all the time - we'd have nothing left for special occasions if we did.

quote:
If you can choose not to do it, then why not be really counter cultural and not do it?

Because swearing is a linguistic tool - it can be used to signal that you are part of a group, and it can be used for extreme emphasis. I've once stopped a room cold with a simple use of the word "fuck" - not because of the word (two of the people there used it roughly every other sentence) but because it was me who used it. And I used it intending to do so. Just as overuse devalues the word, refusing to use a word at all makes it worthless and probably impoverishes your communication even more.

quote:
Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude.

No he doesn't - you've entirely missed the point. But Mousethief has already explained that better than I would at 2am.

quote:
In the final analysis, swearing isn't acceptable anywehere not even in the pulpit or in church.

In the final analysis swearing is a linguistic tool and like any others there is a time and a place for it. That you look down on people you used to work with and describe their everyday use of language as not acceptable anywhere reflects rather more on you than it does on anyone else involved.

quote:
If you take Larkin's words as their base meaning, then it implies a kind of incest - do he really mean that????

It's a good job that English is versatile.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's a good job that English is versatile.

I wasn't sure if the misspelled words were part of the joke, or an indication that the people who made the piece were fucking idiots.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think part of this feeling comes from the idea that all kids have, that their generation invented cuss words and sex, and what could their parents' generation possibly know about them? If teacher is swearing, it's because he's trying to look as cool as us kids. Not because it's something he's been doing since HE was 15.
Kids are smart enough to know that adults swear. They are also smart enough to know that you address your friends differently than you address people you have a formal relationship with, like a teacher. When the teacher addresses you like a friend, it just seems a little off.

Yeah, I had been hearing my father swear for years before I ever encountered that teacher, so it wasn't the novetly of adults swearing that seemed so contrived to me. It was the context in which he was doing it(ie. while lecturing in a classroom).

You really had to see this guy. His whole routine was being the "cool teacher" who cancels classes for the day(and instructs you not to tell the other teachers) and walks into other teacher's classes to deleiver zany monologues.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him

2. Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job -

1. Which words would that be? And why would you have to follow him (or anyo0ne) in using such words (if he did)?

2. Truth trumps profanity any day of the week.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QUOTE]

1. (Swearing) like any others there is a time and a place for it.

2. That you look down on people you used to work with and describe their everyday use of language as not acceptable anywhere reflects rather more on you than it does on anyone else involved.

1. I respect your views but they aren't mine.

2. You seem to imply that because I came to find the swearing irritating (coming as it did every 2nd word), I saw the people the same.
I don't look down on them at all: they were all better people than me for all sorts of reasons. There was far more integrity on a building site (for example) than there is in many a boardroom - sadly also than in many a church.

3. I accept that campolo's intention was to shock - there's much better ways of doing it than swearing IMHO - civil disobedience for example. Swearing is all too safe.

[ 22. December 2012, 05:32: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

My contemporaries and most of the people I meet in my everyday life do not use expletives in general conversation. I long ago ceased to be shocked by them and if I read a book where they were frequently used, then I'd take them as part of the story providing the story was good. However, since being an audio book reader, I have found that they can definitely get in the way of the context, especially if the reader heavily emphasises them. There was one book called 'The Way Home' I think, that I had to give up on, although I understand the story was a good one.

Having never heard of Francis Spufford before, I googled and have been reading acomment in New Humanist and, following that, a comment
linked to at the end of the article.

So thank you, anteater, for a very interesting start to a wet Saturday!

Posted by Clemency (# 16173) on :

I was brought up to believe swearing was very bad, and try not to....(hey, but when a lorry almost knocked me off my motorbike recently I amazed myself at my vocabulary, all thankfully within the confines of a full-face helmet)
but I think it is worth analysing this one a a bit, I reckon there are three classes of 'swear words'
(1) Blasphemy. Really, for Christians that should be out.
(2) Words to do with sex, which belittle a good God-given gift. So not a good idea really.
(3) Earthy words related to human digestive functions. May upset mothers-in-law, so can be an offence against charity. Use with discretion...

At Greenbelt a few years ago I went to three seminars, at all of which the speaker used the f-word, I guess to gain credibility or something,. it had the opposite effect on me - the third one I went up to at the end and really told him off for infantile behaviour... I was quite shocked at myself, and i think he was as well..

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm a firm believer in the idea that we shouldn't swear all the time - we'd have nothing left for special occasions if we did.

This is it. If I swear people know how strongly I feel, because ordinarily I don't swear at all. It's also a much better release when you suddenly hurt yourself when rarely used.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I remember one year at Spring Harvest (massive UK Christian get together on giant camp site. Think Greenbelt but without the fun) a speaker stood up in front of an audience of hundreds to talk about a national Christian charity. He started by saying that thousands of children would die of hunger while he gave his talk.....(pause, no reaction)....and that it was a fucking scandal...(gasps and tuts). He went on to say it was also a scandal that people were more shocked by his use of the word fuck than by the news of the dying children.

I don't think he was ever invited back.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "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."

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "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 for this. It certainly brings back memories.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "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."

So he was a repeat offender? (see above)

Wouldn't it have been better not to swear but to do something????

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
[QUOTE] If I swear people know how strongly I feel, because ordinarily I don't swear at all.

It takes swearing for others to realise how strongly you feel? Doesn't that draw more attention to your language than to the cause or issue you feel strongly about?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
What Tony Campolo is supposed to have said at Spring Harvest is: "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."
So he was a repeat offender? (see above)

Wouldn't it have been better not to swear but to do something????

If the context given above is right, he was trying to raise awareness of a charity, to get the people thinking about it and then doing something.

In this instance I would say his use of expletives was perfectly fine... he makes a valid point that we are so insular-looking, really only think about what is happening to us most of the time, that it is the unimportant things the offend us rather than what is happening to our fellow humanity elsewhere.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"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."
- Tony Campolo

In this case, Campolo was using a specific example of vulgar language to make a point about what Christians find offensive. I think that's a different issue from an author using it as an integral part of their ordinary style of writing.

My CME group had no problem when a Bishop of Ludlow related a story where he was visiting someone and was told on the doorstep to 'fuck off'. The use of the language was part of the point. But if it had been part of his ordinary teaching style during the seminar, it wouldn't've been appropriate. As highlighters or underscorers of important points eg, humour, anger, ignorance, grief etc, vulgar language can be invaluable; but overuse or inappropriate use deprives it of its potential power, imo.

I'm not convinced that a general style of 'expletive' language for a theological work is helpful - unless one has provided the apologia for why that choice of language is necessary, when ordinary descriptive language isn't.

I have no problem (generally) when people swear in their conversation with me. I tend to keep my own bad language to myself and close friends (or occasionally on the Ship). But when I pick up a theological book, I don't expect or want some stranger swearing at me in order to make a point I'm quite capable of understanding without the expletives.

Having said that if I thought the book was making some good points, I wouldn't let it put me off, but it would be in spite of the language not enhanced by it.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I was told as an adolescent that if you can't express yourself without using expletives, you can't express yourself.

Nothing in my experience since has persuaded me that advice was wrong.

Larkin's poem only works because:-
a. He had demonstrated already that he was a very capable wordsmith, and
b. The word he used really is beyond the pale. Once that ceases to be the case, the poem doesn't work any more.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

A few more thoughts.

First, where I come from, fucked up isn't a really good definition of sin, since it usually carries the idea that it was not intentional. Like you accidentally destroy an essential data-set at work. So folk are quite willing to admit they've fucked up since it's sort of understood that they didn't mean to.

You would not normally think of using it to describe somebody exploiting economically deprived young migrants for example. An essential part of sin in the christian sense is that it is not just an accident, at least for mortal sin. But maybe that just my shade of meaning. I didn't consult the FOED on the subject.

Secondly, as to the book. It is interesting, and the expletives don't last into chapter 2, but are replaced by something almost worse: pretentious prose. At least in my view. He is attempting to described a quasi mystical experience, which is notoriously hard to do without just spouting. I can think of few writers who could bring this off. But I'll read it to the end. I think he has something good to say.

Generally I agree with those who think it makes the books seem trendy and seeking of youf-cred. A bit like Holloway (who is one of my all time favourite christian writers) in his repeated use of "shagging" in his excellent book on Godless Morality.

I'm really surprised that there are those who think there is no other way of really expressing their sense of sin.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. St Paul uses expletives in his epistles. Perhaps you'd like to take that up with him

2. Sometimes profanities are the best words for the job -
1. Which words would that be? And why would you have to follow him (or anyo0ne) in using such words (if he did)?

2. Truth trumps profanity any day of the week.

St Paul uses 'shit' and a Greek profanity regarding castration (there's not an English equivalent). My point wasn't that I swear because he does, rather that regarding all people who swear as unintelligent and unchristian when an Apostle swears (and I believe the term used for 'filthy rags' in Zephaniah is also profanity) is foolish.

And sometimes profanity IS the truth. Exclaiming 'shit!' when you stub your toe certainly is nothing more than telling the truth.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
Larkin's poem only works because:-
a. He had demonstrated already that he was a very capable wordsmith, and
b. The word he used really is beyond the pale. Once that ceases to be the case, the poem doesn't work any more.

So, if someone who had never read a Larkin poem were to read that one, he wouldn't be able to fully appreciate it without knowing what Larkin had written previously?

[ 22. December 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]

1. St Paul uses 'shit' and a Greek profanity regarding castration (there's not an English equivalent).

2. .... profanity IS the truth. Exclaiming 'shit!' when you stub your toe certainly is nothing more than telling the truth.

1. Can you please give me the Greek words concerned and the context? Thanks. Who is to say that these were considered swear words in Paul's day?

2. Exclaiming "s***" is only apposite if you stub your toe in the relevant material. Since that material is normally soft and yielding, a stubbed toe is unlikely to result.

It might possibly be appropriate if you step in something and it makes you "s***" - in which case the noun and verb might both apply. Again, highly unlikely.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Philippians 3:8 Skubala

quote:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung (shit) , that I may win Christ.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Philippians 3:8 Skubala
quote:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung (shit) , that I may win Christ.

Well, I don't know about the Greek, but as far as I am aware, the English word "dung" isn't really equivalent to "shit", for being a taboo word. I think it's just a standard, albeit maybe slightly informal, descriptive for feces, usually of the animal variety. As in this wikipedia article.

And yes, Paul was using the word there in the same way that we use "shit", ie. to describe something worthless, but I don't think that in and of itself makes it a swear. We use "garbage" and "trash" the same way, and those aren't considered taboo.

[ 22. December 2012, 17:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

Not a theological piece of writing per se, ut maybe tangentially theodical... The Onion's treatment of the Newtown shooting (warning: not safe for profanity-averse eyes) could give the Psalmist and Job a run for their respective monies.

Point being, profanity can sometimes more effectively capture and express the rawness of our emotions in a way polished prose or verse cannot.

ETA: fixed code

[ 22. December 2012, 17:19: Message edited by: Bostonman ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Philippians 3:8 Skubala
quote:
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and count them but dung (shit) , that I may win Christ.
Well, I don't know about the Greek

So why are you trying to dumb it down?

I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.

Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

2. Exclaiming "s***" is only apposite if you stub your toe in the relevant material. Since that material is normally soft and yielding, a stubbed toe is unlikely to result.

It might possibly be appropriate if you step in something and it makes you "s***" - in which case the noun and verb might both apply. Again, highly unlikely.

But "shit" (waits for sky to fall in... no, nothing) doesn't just mean "poo" or similar, at least not in the way most people use it. Similarly, "sexual intercourse" is one meaning of the word "fuck". Etymology =/= definition; so to say that one can only use the former when talking about "poo" or the latter when talking about "sexual intercourse" simply isn't accurate, even if that's where the terms originated from.

You said earlier that:

quote:
Truth trumps profanity any day of the week.

But perhaps for some people, the truth is that they feel their lives are shit, or fucked up or whatever expletive they care to use. The Onion article Bostonman links to captures that perfectly.

I'm not a great fan of swearing (though I have done, not least when I mowed over the lawnmower cable the other month and it made pretty colours and a loud bang), but if we're going to get all hung up about the language people use and not listen to what they're saying through their expletive-ridden tirades, we're not going to be able to minister to them at all.

Somehow, I'm struggling to picture Jesus getting more worked about someone swearing than about dealing with whatever made them swear.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE]Somehow, I'm struggling to picture Jesus getting more worked about someone swearing than about dealing with whatever made them swear.

(general point) We all seem to know exactly what Jesus gets worked up over these days, such that it can become an easy cloak for accepting behaviour and attitudes (in ourselves and others) that aren't helpful at all.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.

So do I and I assure you it doesn't. It means a waste product (rubbish): to render it as "s***" is reading into the text what isn't there.

Anyway if it does mean what you claim, why does it not appear as that in any translation I'm aware of?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE]Somehow, I'm struggling to picture Jesus getting more worked about someone swearing than about dealing with whatever made them swear.
(general point) We all seem to know exactly what Jesus gets worked up over these days, such that it can become an easy cloak for accepting behaviour and attitudes (in ourselves and others) that aren't helpful at all.

(general point) Jesus got worked up about a whole lot of things in the bible. I await evidence that profanity was one of them.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Not a theological piece of writing per se, ut maybe tangentially theodical... The Onion's treatment of the Newtown shooting (warning: not safe for profanity-averse eyes) could give the Psalmist and Job a run for their respective monies.

Point being, profanity can sometimes more effectively capture and express the rawness of our emotions in a way polished prose or verse cannot.

ETA: fixed code

Point made. That was a lovely piece of writing, made stronger by the considered use of swearing.

I understand that some people are uncomfortable with swearing and would respect their wishes when talking to them, but have not found this to be split down religious lines. I have come across the theory that Christians shouldn't swear at all, but usually espoused by non-churchgoers. [Paranoid]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[QUOTE]general point) Jesus got worked up about a whole lot of things in the bible. I await evidence that profanity was one of them.

It did where it involved insults aimed at hois dad

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Jesus got worked up about a whole lot of things in the bible. I await evidence that profanity was one of them.

Only semantics of course, but I'd rather think that Jesus was very much into countering the profane things of life! And he did direct his followers not to use oaths or swear, if we're going to go down the Bible route.

Howeve, it is difficult to imagine him being needlessly offended by the fruity language of 'sinners and publicans' etc!

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
And he did direct his followers not to use oaths or swear, if we're going to go down the Bible route.

Two different meanings of "swear" obviously.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.
So do I and I assure you it doesn't. It means a waste product (rubbish): to render it as "s***" is reading into the text what isn't there.

Anyway if it does mean what you claim, why does it not appear as that in any translation I'm aware of?

Because translators are coy.

Do you have lexicographal evidence to back up your claim.
Otherwise, you say potAHto and i say potAYto.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

I'm no Greek scholar, but as far as I know Leo is right. "Shit" is a perfectly good translation. As it would be of "worthless dung" anyway.

That doesn't mean its got the same force in Greek that the English word has in English. Of course it doesn't. No two words (other than simple labels for the same thing) have exactly the same range of meaning or usage anyway.

And even in English "shit" has a different force in different contexts. I think its a relatively mild expletive where I live. And also has some literal use - if there is horse-shit in the street you can call it horse-shit without being shockingly rude. It seem to be ruder in some other places.

Which is all quite normal. In the corner shop I can buy a packet of Instant Cock Soup. In fact I did, I have one in my kitchen. From somewhere in the Caribbean I think. If the same stuff had been made in England it would probably have been labeled Chicken Soup. I get the impression that in some parts of the USA it might have been too rude or too funny even to display. Same word, same approximate range of meaning, different force.

My guess is that we probably don't have enough evidence to know how shocking or rude, if at all, words like "skubala" or "kaka" would have been to St Paul's friends and neighbours.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QB If the same stuff had been made in England it would probably have been labeled Chicken Soup. I get the impression that in some parts of the USA it might have been too rude or too funny even to display. [/QB]

Indeed, ken. I am informed by some of my correspondents in the US that they excise *a breastful of milk* from *In the Bleak Midwinter* because it bunches their panties.

LOVE *Instant Cock Soup* - if only! [Big Grin]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.
So do I and I assure you it doesn't. It means a waste product (rubbish): to render it as "s***" is reading into the text what isn't there.

Anyway if it does mean what you claim, why does it not appear as that in any translation I'm aware of?
Because translators are coy.

Do you have lexicographal evidence to back up your claim.

I'll answer my own question:

Σκύβαλον - skubala is a hapax legomena, ie it occurs only once in the New Testament. It might be related to skor in attic Gk.

quote:
That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445);3 (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov" and the medical term perivsswma);4 (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.5 Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE)

source here

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition translates σκύβαλα as “refuse”, “garbage”, “human excrement”, “crud”, and “crap”.

R. B. Hays Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul - ‘crap’ source here

Gordon Fee Paul’s Letter to the Philipians – the word is a vulgarity.

quote:
This is a Greek word that is the equivalent to the modern English word "shit." Skubala is a rare word, used only in Philippians 3:8 in the New Testament. Dung, rubbish, refuse, and a loss are various inaccurate translations of the Greek word. No translation accurately translates this term to its modern English equivalence: "shit." The word means "excrement" either animal or human. It is a very strong word!

source here

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Indeed, ken. I am informed by some of my correspondents in the US that they excise *a breastful of milk* from *In the Bleak Midwinter* because it bunches their panties.

Not just in the US. At a pretty posh church in S London, the choir copies of Darke's In the bleak had "a heart full of mirth and a manger full of hay". It's a tenor solo verse and our soloist started "..a breast full of hay.." We were all agog about how he would get out of it - "a manger full of milk" perhaps? But he just sang "a manger full of hay" without wavering ( much ).

I had the solo the following year and sang the breast full of milk version. Well, it's a solo, so there's no prob with the choir singing what the copy says.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

[Yipee]

just noticed, I agreed on something with ken. Apocraplyse Nigh!

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:
[qb] [QUOTE]I DO have greek and can assure you that it means 'shit'.
So do I and I assure you it doesn't. It means a waste product (rubbish): to render it as "s***" is reading into the text what isn't there.

Anyway if it does mean what you claim, why does it not appear as that in any translation I'm aware of?
Because translators are coy.

Quite so, Leo.

Interestingly, I was taught that the word *busy* as in

1 Kings 18:27

27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

was a euphemism for *taking a dump* i.e. Elijah, in the terminology of our times is saying *you're full of shit*. Although the Baal whose followers were contesting Elijah is not explicitly called Baal Peor, it's quite likely that it was the same chap, whose name is identified with excretion.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I would like now to offer amore general review of the book.

Basically I find the book a bit of a letdown, although it is an ok read, despite occasion purple prose, and of course the fucking swear words. It is rather a rant. And much of it could have been written Hitchens, as it has a lot of polemic about what's wrong (fucked up) about the church. I found Spufford a very
Iilable author, and appreciate him giving vent to what it feels like to want and try to believe, knowing you're on thin ice.

But it is a real problem working out what he means by the Christianity which he find so emotionally convincing. He does state that he tries to believe everything in the creed, and maybe he does but there's no evidence of this in the book. There is very little or no mention of resurrection, atonement, prayer. It is really a minimalist faith, and because of this there is no analysis of why,for example, the idea of Jesus dying to save the world is emotionally convincing, and I have no reason to think that this is included in his take on Christianity

If fact there is little, if anything, that could not be believed by a Buuddhist or indeed Atheist, since no truth claims are made.

I'm also concerned about his view of foregiveness, which is central to the book. He starts by hinting that he had treated someone close to him badly, and how important it is to feel forgiven. But is it not more relevant to seek foregiveness from the one you have wronged? I'm not implying he did not, but assuming he did, why is it so important to have a sort of cosmic foregiveness? Nor does he even mention the possibility that Christian foregiveness is conditional, at least according to Jesus (aka Yeshua).

I was taken aback by the final chapter in which he goes all inclusive and states that he views hard right republican fundies as his fellow travellers, when he previously implied if not directly stated that he prefers atheism to fundamentalism. So I'm confused, but enjoyed the interaction with Francis Spufford's mind.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Returning to the original question: While there are circumstances in which terms which are vulgar or obscene or profane may be appropriate to achieve emphasis or to express outrage, I think these are unusual. If I attend my neighborhood church and discover the preacher using objectionable language routinely, I will probably look for another church. The English language has a vocabulary so vast that there are nearly always alternatives.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

I would be apalled if a clergyperson in my church used obscene, foul, or crude language
at any time .BUT especially from the pulpit.
Such language does not build up the church and appeals to the lowest common denominator in humankind.
I believe that we should avoid such language at all times. Am I a success at this ? No . It is an ideal to strive for , the
mark towards which should press as Paul states. Does bad language hjelp explain the faith ? I think not. [Votive]

[ 24. December 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: PaulBC ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I dunno. I once described King David as "kind of a fuck-up" and I still think that was the perfect way to describe him.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Swear words certainly bring out the "Look at me, I pay my taxes and fast" tendency. The choice of words that we use is only the tip of the iceberg of how we show the fruits of the Spirit. The fruits, love, joy, peace and all that are more important than particular words in this context.

It's words like gay, Jew or retarded used in a context of discrimination that we should get worked up about. There's a whole manner of words inherited from colonialism (with its partner, racism) in our everyday language, words that don't receive such attention.

I was once at a Mass (an evening sung Mass for St. Thomas, hence there being not a lot of people there) where the Priest spoke of hearing about a funeral of a child, where the mother got up during the service, put his hand on the coffin and said "I think God's a shit". He spoke of that being an example of how God is big enough to tolerate such comments (a matter for another thread).

After the service a server complained to me about how a "profane" word was used. Talk about priorities.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I dunno. I once described King David as "kind of a fuck-up" and I still think that was the perfect way to describe him.

Others would find that description rather inadequate or imperfect.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Well, we could expand it to mass-murderer, adulterer, liar, mercenary, thief, kidnapper, bandit, rapist, senile old man, and so on. They are all there in the book of Samuel. "Total fuck-up" does as a kind of summary.

And still God loved him. Which is sort of the point.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Total fuck-up" does as a kind of summary.

Hardly. That's like looking at one side of a coin and calling it "total tails".

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And still God loved him. Which is sort of the point.

That always is the point, but never in the simplistic way that you have suggest there... God did have a thing or two to say about David's failings, and David mostly knew when it was time for sackcloth and ashes.

As for the OP, swearing has its place and on rare occasions may even be put to the service of Christ. However, the effect of swearing is in my opinion not captured well in the written word. Reading "fuck" is rather less than hearing "fuck" and that is less still than experiencing the speech act entirely. As part of written argument expletives rarely achieve anything but highlighting the weakness of what is being written. And yes, I do include SoF posts in that judgement.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Total fuck-up" does as a kind of summary.
Hardly. That's like looking at one side of a coin and calling it "total tails".

That's why I went with "kind of."

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Tony Campolo comes across like a little boy (in the story quoted above) who sticks his tomgue out and says "bum", giggling cos he thinks it's rude. It isn't - it's just attention seeking and I can think of better ways to draw people's attention to the problem of injustice than swearing.

Speaking as someone who was in Prestatyn that evening in 1982 (a very early Spring Harvest) and heard the whole of that impassioned talk (about the values of the kingdom) I can assure you that I have never heard anything that was less like a giggle or did more to change, for the better, that whole event.

But, yes, there were people who were offended by the language. I wasn't one of them. It changed the way I looked at a lot of things. I guess you had to be there.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, I read a transcript of that speech in The Wittenburg Door, and in context Campolo came across as pretty angry. He was not trying to be cute at all.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

As for the OP, swearing has its place and on rare occasions may even be put to the service of Christ. However, the effect of swearing is in my opinion not captured well in the written word. Reading "fuck" is rather less than hearing "fuck" and that is less still than experiencing the speech act entirely. As part of written argument expletives rarely achieve anything but highlighting the weakness of what is being written. And yes, I do include SoF posts in that judgement.

I agree - when it's written it's not an expletive and loses its impact entirely.

Posted by Clemency (# 16173) on :

Was anyone at Greenbelt a few years ago when Martyn Joseph sang a song (and tried to get us all to join in the chorus in which God told some American Conservative (forget who, Pat someone) to f.... off. To me it just did not work at all. A friend with young kids there had some explaining to do to them.. I cogitated a lot as to why it left such a nasty taste in my mind and decided it was not so much the word as the mockery-from-a-safe-position. GB has over the years provided some high and low moments; this one was, for me, pretty p- and b-athetic....

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

I was reminded of this thread when I found a cracking typo in the Ringing World for 21-28 December.

On page 1319 "For those who have rung at the Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling..."

I can't help feeling that it's exactly the sort of church where you could read II Kings 9:8 from the pulpit.

AG

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
... He does state that he tries to believe everything in the creed, and maybe he does but there's no evidence of this in the book. There is very little or no mention of resurrection, atonement, prayer...

Maybe the edition I'm reading now is different to the one you've read.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
I was reminded of this thread when I found a cracking typo in the Ringing World for 21-28 December.

On page 1319 "For those who have rung at the Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling..."

I can't help feeling that it's exactly the sort of church where you could read II Kings 9:8 from the pulpit.

AG

Er - point of order - that wasn't actually a typo.

Church of the Holy Rude, Stirling

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

AdamPater:
Don't think so, but I got it out of the library, so would have to reload to check. Perhaps you could give some summary of his beliefs about atonement, preferably with page references.

If I'm wrong hen in will stand corrected, but I need more than you've given so far.

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

Well, that's one way to spend a Sunday afternoon...

I found 14 "fuck"s (or similar), 11 "shit"s, 53 "HPtFtU"s and 4 "bastard"s, on 55 distinct pages out of 224.

"bastard" appears exclusively in the sense of "He doesn't exist, the bastard", a quote or reference to Samuel Beckett.

"HPtFtU" is introduced early as an initialism for "Human Propensity to Fuck things Up", a technical term for, essentially, "original sin", in recognition that contemporary discourse doesn't really understand "sin" in it's orthodox Christian sense. As such it seems a bit harsh to count "HPtFtU" as an expletive, or even particularly vulgar.

"fuck" and "shit" (and similar) appear on 23 separate pages.

There are occasional appearances of colloquial language that might be considered not quite right, such as "arse", "pissed off", "pissed", "buggered", "crap" and "bloody", but there weren't that many of them, really. "bloody" was the only word, on one occasion ("Richard bloody Dawkins") that I thought really counted as an expletive. Other usage of "fuck" and "shit" (and derivatives) might be vulgar but they did add meaning to the sentence, acting as a verb or noun in context.

Chapter 5 is a paraphrased gospel account, including the resurrection. "Prayer" is described from an insider perspective in pages 57 to 66.

The author sets out to give an account of "Christian faith from the inside" (stated intention in the last chapter), in deliberate contrast to an understanding of religious belief as assent to various propositions about the world (page 18). As such, it's a bit out of scope to expect a discussion of "atonement", which is arguably a high level propositional truth of faith, rather than one of direct emotional and personal import.

Personally, I think I recognised every part of this personal account from the inside of Christian faith. I think I would enjoy meeting the author, over a pint after church.

Could be wrong about some of the counting. Definitely might not have taken in some of the author's intent: I was focussing on the fucking words, not the author's intention or meaning.

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

Bugger... missed the edit window. Meant to say that, agreeing with a review I read, the book is meant to be heard in a reading out loud. The language works.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

It's hard to imagine that many of us in the western church are sufficiently inflamed by the gospel and consumed by God to justify using expletives. We're too tentative and conciliatory for that. I can see that the Dead Horse issues might lead many to anger, but as for 'explaining Christianity', that's a job that's either been highly intellectualised (although maybe the odd swear word in an academic tome adds a little 'colour'), or at a popular level it's a task that most ordinary Chrisitans feel deeply uncomfortable with anyway, and I don't see how swearing could help with that.

As others have said, in most cases it just seems like posing, or trying to shock for the sake of it. I suppose that if swearing is part of your everyday language and not an affectation, then it might be understandable. But that's not the case for most Christians, and these days fresh converts aren't usually drawn from the kind of demographic where f words appear in every other sentence. More's the pity.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

The Revd. Bowdler was famous for rewriting folk songs and fairy tales removing any distasteful words, so that they could then be allowed to be read by Victorian children.

It would seem that similar ‘editing’ takes place when translating the Holy Scriptures, in order to preserve the sensibilities of the prudish.

In the following translations a simple concept is rendered in a number of ways. Mostly it seems that the ‘meaning remains clear’ but in Youngs Literal version it seems he simply could not bring himself to translate it literally but chose rather to make it altogether meaningless.

I must say however the gritty coarseness of the KJV is so much more expressive of the force of contempt carried by the imagery of the original Hebrew.

It makes me wonder how much more of The Bible has been rendered an anodyne, inoffensive mistranslation of the gritty and punchy original.

1 Sam. 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. KJV

22 God do so to David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him. " RSV

22 God do so to David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him. NRSV

22 So and more also may God do to the enemies of David, if I leave to the light of the morning any that is his of one who urinates against the wall. NKJV

22 So may God do to the enemies of David, and may He do more so, if I leave any of all that is to him to the light of the morning, of one who urinates against a wall. Greens Literal Version

22 God do so to the enemies of David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him. ESV.

22 God do so unto the enemies of David, and more also, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light so much as one man-child. ASV

22 thus doth God do to the enemies of David, and thus He doth add, if I leave of all that he hath till the light of the morning -- of those sitting on the wall. Youngs Literal Version.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0