A couple days ago, I wrote about the A Form of Sound Words post about “synthetic cursing” and the response from
Joe Missionary. I promised I’d respond to Messy
Christian and Jeff
the Baptist. Today I will.
Tongue Tied, Part II
7 Replies
Tag Archives: theology
Tongue Tied
A couple months ago, Rand of A Form of Sound Words said:
"DARN it to HECK! I can’t believe Billy believes that load of CRAP. I mean JEEEZ, what is he thinking. I tried and tried to talk some sense into him, but OH MY GOSH, he’s stubborn."
"I apologize in advance to all the good and faithful Christians reading the above phrases and are offended. Your reaction is appropriate. I still felt it was important for me to post it as an example. You see, in the above four little phrases, we have a remarkable four blasphemies, and one gross word that any civil human would avoid using (non-Christian’s included)"
Four blasphemies? Where?
"blasphemy – To speak of (God or a sacred entity) in an irreverent, impious manner."
"Damn" (meaning to condemn to Hell) has lost the naughty edge it once had, but I can understand a particular scrupulous person’s desire to avoid using it inappropriately. At some point, its use as an interjection became popular. In an effort to curb one’s use of an objectionable word or phrase, finding safe substitutes is only natural. In fact, I’d say the practice is laudable.
Odds are you got into the habit of saying it because you heard lots of people around you saying it. Their habits rubbed off on you. Now that you’re watching your tongue, though, you find that the habit is hard to break. You have to fight instinct every time your stub a toe. If you manage to substitute "darn", "dang", "dag-nabbit", or even "d’oh", you should be pleased, not ashamed. Shoudl you always be content with mere substitutions? Of course not. Course language just makes you sound ill-bred and poorly educated, thus lacking a sufficiently diversified and sophisticated vocabulary. It also shows lack of constraint and slavery to one’s will, rather than submission to God’s.
"Hell" is not sacred. In fact, it’s anthetical to sacredness. It is not a blasphemous word in and of itself. However, if one speaks/writes of damning someone/something to Hell, that verges on blasphemy as damnation is God’s prerogative alone. In general, the word shouldn’t be used lightly, lest we forget what Hell is and its relation to salvation. However, I don’t think saying/writing it is nearly as bad as Rand makes it out to be. As with "damn", I see no harm in using a substitution.
Inappropriate use of the Name that is above all other names, Jesus Christ, is indeed blasphemy. I cringe when I hear anyone abuse it. I don’t just approve of, but also applaud substitutions in this case. Again, they;re not ideal, but they’re a lot better. Their use at least demonstrates recognition of wrong-doing and desire to change.
"God", when used similarly to Rand’s example, might be blasphemy. I’m not sure. I know I don’t like to hear the word used that way. However, because "God" is not a proper name, I do not believe its abuse is nearly as serious. Ancient Jews were so serious about not blaspheming the name of God, "YHVH" (often translated as Yahweh) that they always substituted the word "Adonai" (meaning Lord) when reading aloud from Scripture. That practice went a little too far, though, because superstitious belief (that speaking a name could give a person power over another) were associated with it.
One gross word? Ummm…perhaps it’s not the most intellectual thing to say, but I don’t think "crap" is really gross unless you describe its characteristics. As far as I’m concerned, the mention of feces in an interjectory context merely represents the messy and unpleasant situation the speaker/writer finds himself in.
This isn’t the first time I’ve pointed out this post. Why bring it up again? One of my regular reads, Joe Missionary, wrote about it and caught my interest.
"First off, words in and of themselves are devoid of filth. It is the culture which determines that a particular word is offensive. The word ‘bloody’ is more offensive to the English ear than it is to the American ear. In a similar way, consider the four-letter ‘s’ word meaning ‘excrement’. This word, which is offensive to my ear, is an ordinary word on this side of the world. When we spoke with a Christian about it (whom we heard utter it), she was surprised that it is considered foul language."
I agree that words do not have inherent meaning. All meanings are culturally defined. However, I would add that if one intends a word to be offensive, regardless of how it is taken by the hearer/reader, it is objectively offensive.
"If I bump my head and say, ‘Shparndoogie!’, is that just as bad as saying ‘Dang that hurt!’"
Nope. Such nonsense words merely express emotions that probably haven’t been processed suffiently to be expressed in coherent speech. That is, they are essentially precognitive. We are no more cursing than a baby is when it cries to express pain or hunger.
"Words change meaning. The word ‘gay’ is a perfect example. So what about these substitute curse words? Take the word ‘jeez’ – it is most likely derived from ‘Jesus’. However, it’s my opinion that most people who say ‘jeez’ – even Christians – are not thinking of Jesus or the name of Jesus when they say it. What about the word ‘piss’? I know, I said I wouldn’t say any more curse words, but I’m just quoting from the Bible: ‘…any that pisseth against the wall’ (1 Sam 25:22, KJV). In 1611, this word was an ordinary word. Today, it’s considered vulgar. Not only do words change meaning, but the perceptions of words change as well."
See above about intention. On the flip side of intention, a word that will likely cause the listener/reader to be offended is objectively offensive. However, it may not be subjectively offense. That is, you may not intend to offend. One is not likely to intend offense when reading from the KJV, for instance.
"Allow me to suggest a couple principles for us to follow:"
"1. ‘Be careful…that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak’ (1 Cor 8:9). I have felt the temptation to flaunt my freedom in particular areas; I assume this is a common temptation. I may be 100% convinced that ‘shparndoogie’ is not a curse word; but if I am aware that some consider it offensive, I shouldn’t use it around others."
2. ‘[S]et an example for the believers in speech…’ (1 Tim 4:12). As Rand says, let’s glorify God with the words that come out of our mouths. Or at least try."
My thoughts exactly. Don’t settle for suffient; aim for laudable.
Perhaps I’ll tackle the opposing viewpoints of Messy Christian and Jeff the Baptist in the next few days.
Ask the Right Questions
Aristotle taught us to ask the right questions, and I fear that many advocates for Terri, of whom I am one, have been asking entirely the wrong questions. The May 2005 issue of First Things has an excellent article by Robert T. Miller called "The Legal Death of Terri Schiavo". In the introduction, he states:
"Despite all the public outrage at the horror of an innocent woman being starved to death, despite the desperate and pathetic pleas of her parents, despite even a special act of Congress requiring the federal courts to intervene, those courts have let stand an order that Terri Schiavo die – or so many usually informed commentators have said. Once again, judges have ignored the plain meaning of democratically enacted laws in order to enforce their own moral values – or so we have been told."
"Unfortunately,it isn’t true. The simple fact is that Terri Schiavo’s legal rights were never once violated. The result in the case was so unjust not because the courts ignored the law but because they followed it. The laws of Florida, like those of most states, specifically allow that, in cases like Schiavo’s, some people may decide that others ought to die."
Prof. Miller goes on to demonstrate how Terri’s parents, the Schindlers, were fighting a battle regarding federal law, which held no water, and that while what Mr. Schiavo and Judge Greer did was immoral, it was not illegal.
While I’m often asked about medical and bioethical issues by friends, I often steered clear of Terri Schiavo’s medical status. It’s a mess, with "he said, she said" finger-pointing, shifting opinions, and convenient "memories" about what Terri thought about end-of-life issues. She evidently had a rough marriage, and the whole nation got to see a family train wreck with bad judgment on both sides.
In avoiding the morass of Terri’s diagnoses, one clear issue remains: due process. Mr. Schiavo did promise to provide a certain level of medical care to Terri upon getting the malpractice awards, but did not follow up on that promise, which included neurological diagnostics that may have shed light on what exactly was going wrong with her and what her odds of rehabilitation would be. Much ink and webpage-space has been expended on this, but we still don’t know much because Mr. Schiavo stonewalled us.
Perhaps Terri was incurable, but the media did quote some dissenters in the neurology community, and without the modicum of care that Mr. Schiavo should have provided but did not, we cannot say whether those dissenters were right or not.
If there was a convicted serial rapist on death row, and some experts disputed that some forensic tests were not performed, and could bear on the convict’s guilt, would that not raise a stink in the media? I do not want to say what Terri or Mr. Schiavo really thought or meant to do, I just want an assurance of due process, and while I’d see the ACLU fighting for the right of a serial killer to live, a sick woman who cannot speak for herself is starved out of hand when her caretaker did not do the things he promised to do for her, and in the face of dissent amongst experts in the field.
I’m not saying that those dissenters, had they examined her, would have found any hope for Terri’s recovery, but that gap in care worries me.
I hope that the debate will shift from finger-pointing and chattering about autopsies to the more fundamental issues of protecting the rights and lives of patients. This debate as been cast in the media’s favorite "red vs. blue" die, but what about the disability rights advocates who argued for Terri, like Not Dead Yet?
What of the voices from Judaism that opposed pulling Terri’s feeding tube (e.g., here)? I attended a lecture last semester by a professor at Duquesne University who wrote a book comparing Catholic and Jewish bioethical tradition (he’s Jewish, by the way), and he cited Judaism’s very strict protection of dying patients, an interest that has been only intensified by experiences such as the Holocaust and the preceding T4 Program.
In short, there are many voices that objected to Terri’s treatment. In part, these voices have been silenced by the usualbiases of many reporters (as soon as Santorum and Bush weighed in on the issue, it became another right-vs.-left story).
However, much of the problem has been with Terri’s advocates, who have not hit the real issues of due process and protections of rights while muddying the waters with contradictory medical evidence, accounts of what Terri "would have wanted", and so forth. In doing so, we have also snuffed out perspectives from the disabled, the vulnerable ones in our country, and also from Jewish leaders, who are anything but Republican Christians, and who have very acute memories about where "quality of life" discussions may take us if we do not look out for our most vulnerable brethren.
Apology Due to Michael Schiavo?
The Terri Schiavo autopsy results are out and nobody seems to be talking about them. Or rather, it seems nobody who was rallying the troops in her defense is talking about them. Maybe I’m just reading the wrong blogs, but the only ones that I’ve noticed mentioning the autopsy at all are those by folks who were supporters of Michael Schiavo’s position – and they’re gloating.
She wasn’t abused.
Her brain was damaged beyond all hope of repair.
She was blind.
In short, it seems she had long ago ceased to be a living, thinking human being by any reasonable definition.
I’m still waiting to learn more of the details before saying too much, but I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that the pro-life community and Christians in particular may owe Michael Schiavo and his supporters an apology.
Thoughts?
Update 06/19/05: Obviously, around the time I wrote this post, the skeptics (of the autopsy) started posting. Here are some examples.
"The autopsy also documented significant brain atrophy, and the medical panel called the damage ‘irreversible.’
"This is not the same as saying she had no cognitive ability. " – Pro-Life Blogs
To say that would be redundant to the CT scans taken of here brain (source 1, source 2, source 3). If the correct interpretation of scans is that she had no cortical function left, she could not have had any cognitive ability.
"For me, the whole tragedy surrounding Terri and the people who wanted her dead didn�t hinge on how severely brain-damaged she was. She was alive and wasn�t on life support, and her husband�s credibility was extremely low, too low to trust his assertion that Terri wanted to die if ever severely brain-damaged. Forget about what you�d want if you were ever in the same condition. Take yourselves out of the equation."
"The way they killed her was appalling, and I was angry for a long time afterward. I�m giving you a heads-up. Don�t be alarmed or disgusted by the liberal media and liberal bloggers (and some conservatives, too) declaring that Terri�s wayward husband is somehow �vindicated� by the autopsy report. The doctor-induced starvation was immoral." – LaShawn Barber
If Terri Schiavo ceased to be a a thinking, feeling human being years ago, was it actually wrong to starve her empty shell to death? I guess that hinges on whether Michael Schiavo could have had sufficient knowledge to demonstrate that she was, beyond reasonable doubt, lacking cognition.
BTW, Smart Christian seems to agree with my suggestion that there might be some apologies owed. For the record, I haven’t made up my mind on this matter. I’m just not content with plugging my ears, yelling "La, la, la. I can’t hear you!", and essentially ignoring the consequences of the autopsy report, as so many of my Christian and pro-life brethren seem to be.
Stay tuned for another post on this topic.
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." – 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
This verse seems to be a favorite among Evangelicals. It's an essential part of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. It occurred to me yesterday that sola sciptura has not only the exegetical and hermeneutical consequences, with which most are already familiar, but also ecclesiological.
If there is a right way of dividing the Word, i.e. handling (RSV) or imparting without deviation (NAB), there must also be a wrong way (or several wrong ways). Obviously, Protestants do not believe that Catholics rightly divide the Word. We reject sola scriptura. In their eyes, that doctrine is essential to correct interpretation.
So I find myself wondering whose version of "scripture interpreting scripture" is to be believed? If sola scriptura is so right, shouldn't there be a single obvious Protestant counterpart to the Catholic Church? Why are there so many competing denominations today? Why are there thousands of new groups appearing every year? Shouldn't there be only one right division of the Word?
One of the key problems with sola scriptura is that it robs Protestants of a proper sense of ecclesiology. They have no unified Church to maintain and protect the Deposit of Faith. When only scripture can interpret scripture, there can be no authoritative external interpretation. For Catholics and Orthodox, this external authority is Sacred Tradition. It's what helps the Church maintain unity and orthodoxy. Heresy is relatively easy to identify and counter.
Protestants have no such authority to which they can appeal. One denominations's heresy is another's doctrine. Don't like what you're hearing? Find another place to hang your hat. Don't like any group you've tried? Start your own.
Why is sola scriptura a bad doctrine? By its fruits you will know it. One of those fruits is division in the Body of Christ.