Comments on: Using profanity for a good cause?

By: Bryan Catherman

Bryan Catherman — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:53:53 +0000

This discussion seems to prove Dr. Campolo’s point. Too often the Church tends to get way to hung up the minor points, missing the larger issues. But we also seem to pick and choose our minor points that get our underwear bound up.

I’ve seen some really, really fat pastors. Imagine one of them was preaching on marriage, or sin, or salvation, and the nature of Christ but all I saw was his unhealthy and disrespected temple (his fat body.) What if he smoked but was calling us to share the Good News with our co-workers? Do I get so bothered by his smoking that I miss the larger point?

I participated in a John Eldridge “Wild at Heart” study. On the video, Eldridge was making a very important point about the masculine creation and how political correctness sometimes works against this creation. Then he said, “…they might as well cut the boy’s nuts off.” His point was valid but the rest of the men’s group spent the meeting giggling like school girls because someone said “nuts” in church. The point was lost. However, if Eldridge softened his statement, the point would be missed anyway.

This is the very problem with the Church today. We’re so afraid of getting dirty that we won’t touch the leaper. The minor issues are such a distraction that we’ve forgotten the larger work and message of Jesus.

How sad.

By: Douglas Mehling

Douglas Mehling — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:08:25 +0000

As one who seeks to have my entire life guided by the principles of Christ and his kingdom, profanity will always be unacceptable. It is always used in a vulgar sense, and is always looked down up on in every culture as a sign of unrefinement. A relationship with God should lead to a refinement in every aspect of our lives, including our speech. So from a Christian standpoint, I can never say that profanity is overrated. It will always be incompatible with Christian thinking. Now, I think it is unfair to say that in our concern for the use of a speaker’s profanity we are less concerned about the plight of suffering children. Who says we are not concerned about their suffering? I believe Dr. Campolo intentionally chose to make a statement that would shock people and perhaps make them angry. Thus he would apparently succeed in making them seem like they were overly concerned about Jim uttering profanity. He presupposed that his audience did not care about the suffering of others and then tried to make them feel guilty about being concerned about something they should rightly be concerned about. So Dr. Campolo could be commended for concern about the poor and suffering, but his methodology for getting others to be concerned was quite unfortunate. As a fellow preacher, I’m disappointed that Dr. Campolo would speak in such a way. A minister of the gospel must always reflect Christ, and use of the profanity does not accomplish that in any way. Why can’t we just learn to see that profanity has no part in the life of a Christian?

By: Douglas Mehling

Douglas Mehling — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:07:10 +0000

By: Lyza Jane

Lyza Jane — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:56:55 +0000

here is what i think. That quote presents a powerful point. Profanity is over rated, some people do worry more about the quote “bad language” the man is using than about the 3 thousand children who died. what does this tell you about our country?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:14:09 +0000

Dr Campolo’s point is deliberately provocative – and his point is proved by this blog, which is dedicated to the fact not that 30,000 children died last night (again), but that he said “$@17″ in a sermon.

So he said a bad word. Big deal.

Speaking as a European Christian, it almost beggars belief that you could be more concerned with a swearword than thirty thousand corpses. Of children.

Hold that mental image.

Just for a second.

Thirty thousand dead children.

Corpses.

Next to that, who cares about a naughty word?

By: Idetrorce

Idetrorce — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:53:16 +0000

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

By: Larry Elledge

Larry Elledge — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 00:31:48 +0000

OK. So we all agree that using profanity should be avoided, but feeding the hungry is really the most important thing here. Or are we just willing to blog about it? I challenge everyone who reads this Bolg to make a difference. How can we put our money (even though we may not have any any spare money laying around)where our mouth is? I am sure most Americans will spend enough on Christmas presents to completely do away with hunger. I heard the other day that 30 Billion would be spent in the next 3 weeks. I don’t think there is any hope that we can change that but those of us on this site who are now aware of the fact that that many children died in one night (and I am sure that statistic is for every night) I believe will be held to a higher accountability level now that we know. Most of us could stand to miss a meal or 100 (I’m talking about myself). Remember, Jesus also said whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me and whatever you do not do to the least of these, you do unto me. Douglas, how do we as professing Christians do our part? Whats the best way to help?

By: dan

dan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 04:23:41 +0000

i was told to check this statement out on what the theologian said , and i noticed that every one seemed to be devited in two groups, most on the plite of the 30,000 children not on the charcter of the teacher.there is no excuse for profanity especially if your in the public eye, and even more so if your a christian teacher. i beleve the real underline problem is the lack of godlyness,in our churchs,institutions universities,and homes.this morning my wife and i saw on the tv a church service where they were having a communium service and the preacher was dancing and singing the service as a blues man and the congergation was (moven to the groven) on the other channel was the td jakes show,then a screaming preacher on the other channel,what spirit are they of? (2 tim 3:5) Jesus was meek and spoke plain,
and his word cut deep to the marro of our minds, no other spake like that man.(EPH 4:29)(EPH 6-)(JOHN 7:46) and if we are of the same spirit then we will have the same afect.not worldly speech.as for the 30,000 children Jesus said the poor you will always have with you,so the poor is another subject. i think the reason this teacher brought this subject up in this class is a politically correct reason which is a big problem with the world to day.so when we mix pc with religion it will burst the bottle.(luke 5 ;37-39)

By: Jhan

Jhan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:25:04 +0000

In reply to all comments above, espeically Allison’s & Rita’s, you’ve hit the nail right on the head here. His method was obviously a distraction or we would not be having all this blogging! )

I really enjoyed reading your comments and while I’m glad Doug would never stoop to using profanity for it’s shock value, I’m also gald he’s written bolg on the bigger part of this picture, the most improtant part. The starving children…

By: Rita

Rita — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:30:43 +0000

Allison, I really like what you had to say. Makes so much sense. I do congratulate Compolo for caring about the poor. His methods do not motivate me at all, they are really distracting, but the message does stir me regardless.