Put bluntly, a Christian worldview is not an excuse for compromised sinning. A Christian worldview is not an all-purpose disinfectant.
My babbling frustrates even me, so I enlist someone who writes better than myself. Like most people who haven't been trained in the art of writing, there exist a great gulf fixed between the brain and the right write hand. Any of you who get the Veritas Press magazine, read the article on page 50 to understand my position (the article is called 'A shield and a sword' by D.Wilson). Notice the word 'limit'. I'd post that here too, but I can't find where it lives in cyberspace.
I've probably put way too much thought into this whole discussion, a common side-effect when talking to pot-stirring Buffalonians, but I offer an anology. Words are like tools in the garden of life (deep, I know). Most people use rakes, hoes, and shovels. Some uppercrust affluent individuals use rottotillers, tractors, and other people's sweat. Others use only sharp steely knives, which are unfit for gardening, that glissen in the sunlight anoying all onlookers. I suppose everbody uses knives from 'temp de temp'. It reminds us of where and what we don't want to be.
"If a book does not have a wicked character in it, it is a wicked book." G.K.Chesterton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I suppose the title itself presents a false choice. How else could I get you to read the post?
Also, because people use shiny knives, doesn't mean that I endorse it.
I agree with both articles. I dunno where our disagreement lies, but it must lurk somewhere.
Methinks our disagreement lies in the concept of limits. I maintain that's it's quite easy to show man's depravity apart from foul language.
I've also been thinking about another way to explain why I 'tolerate' certain language in various forms of medium.
For instance, I'm sure you buy American products to help stimulate the economy as much as possible blah blah blah. However, like most growing families, we can't afford to buy expensive food/articles all the time (as much as we would like too). Why? Becuase how much I get paid is out of my immediate control (unless I quit, which would defy common sense). I absolutley hate the fact that probably 75% of the things we own are made in China. But this is life, and we all do the best we can.
So, I tolerate that which is out of my control and strive towards something better.
About using how I was raised as an argument, I believe for the most part I was raised biblically.
Also sorry about not answering your question. Since I lost track of what it was, ask it here.
#1. My question isn't relevant anymore because I think you would argue that while portrayal of other sin isn't always gratuitous, swearing is always gratuitous. (If I'm wrong in this, then I'll ask the question again.) I disagree, of course, that swearing is always gratuitous, probably for some of the same reasons that you would argue that violence and portrayals of other sin isn’t always gratuitous.
#2. It's worth noting that I've limited my defense of swearing in this discussion to its use in story to portray man's depravity and that I haven't condoned Christians using swear words in their daily communication. I think that the instances in which Christians “should” use swear words are extremely limited, if they exist at all, although there are instances in which it's permissible (lawful but not necessarily profitable).
#3. Yep, I'll agree that our disagreement lies in where limits should be placed, and I think that a general statement on man's depravity can be shown apart from foul language, the same way I believe that a general statement on his depravity can be shown apart from specific instances of murder, theft, violence, jealousy, cruelty, etc.
#4. I still pick on you (good-naturedly) for implying that the language in movies you watch is beyond your control. My parents raised 7 kids over the course of 30-odd years without finding it beyond their control to keep profanity and other filmed "leaven" out of the house. (Please don't think I'm saying here that you or I should raise our respective children identically; I'm simply reinforcing my belief that it isn't something that is beyond our control. We choose the movies and the content we allow on our screens; that's it, plain and simple.) The word is half his that speaks and half his that hears it. —Montaigne
#5. I'll try to limit the remainder of my comments to the particular comic that John posted. Otherwise, my wordiness will again confuse the issue.
Language, its shape as it develops, and the way humans employ it, is one of the clearest reflections of man's state of soul (i.e. "Out of the heart the mouth speaketh"). Your stance that man's depravity can be shown "just as well" by using other words shows a disregard for this. Words are not always interchangeable, particularly when they have connotations completely divorced from original meaning and that are dependent upon context and intent. The very fact that swear words usually display "a lack of self-control and clarity," as you wrote on John's blog, expresses something about their speaker that couldn't be expressed otherwise. God is the originator of order and design, and the lack of order and clarity in this man’s unprovoked verbal attack show depravity in a way that could not have been shown with substitutes.
In one response to you, John wrote, “Are my substituted words as effective in portraying the depravity of man as are the words that are chosen by Chris Ware in this strip? Do my words as easily convey the sheer wickedness of the flippant verbal barrage that our hero is faced with?”
It’s the flippancy of the words, I think, that illustrates the horrifying reality of his violence. He has no reason to accost Jimmy, and the language he uses underscores that. I think that, in this strip, the use of swear words and the man’s unprovoked violence are inextricable. They, quite simply, could not have been adequately expressed another way. The words the man spoke, with their mixture of flippancy and force, have no equivalent.
The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug. -Twain
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used. —Oliver Wendell Holmes
I’ve done it again! Dragging on the discussion past the point at which it should end….
Next time we’re down, we’ll all have time to discuss this issue in a better forum, but we’ll be so weary of it that the conversation will instead revolve around brew, the need for Kitty imitators, and eschatology (which, now that I think of it, is the usual topic of conversation around the Terry campfire).
Abby,
We've moved well beyond discussions of escatology in our campfire meetings. Now we talk of 'agrarian communities' and 'homebrew for all'.
In my estimation we've been coming at a common agreement but from two different directions.
I've been arguing for the abolition of swearing by Christians specifically (accepting your exceptions closely). Whereas you, if I may be so humble, have been coming from the viewpoint of such talk specifically in art. I felt that since John posted that on his blog, HE was responsible for it's content, where I think you (and John) were defending it's 'artistic value'.
However:
"The word is half his that speaks and half his that hears it. —Montaigne"
Does that apply to all language everywhere at all times? Will I be accountable for what I hear generally? This again confuses the issue of endorsement and tolerance. You are trying to prove, partly, that because I hear certain words in certain movies that I approve. Nothing could be further from the truth. It disgusts me. Just like John's post I didn't know the what he posted till I read it. Similarily, I don't know what actors are going to say until I hear it. Now that's a weak defense but sensible.
It's interesting that this is such a discussion. Dispensationalist wouldn't even spend the time on such matters.
We just got rid of the Blazer and bought something a little less thirsty for gas. Therefore, in the near future we've plans to do the Oma/Opa, Jonathan/Jessamyn, J,A,M,A, Owen trip. 'Cause I imagine if we're going to hammer anything out it will be 'cara a cara'.
Maybe we could catch a movie too.
Quickly here, because I must finish a letter to your wife...
THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTION:
We would LOVE to see you three! Please, please, please come soon. We will provide good food, drink, and even better conversation, which will not involve the likes of these pesty comments below. :)
#1. We probably are in more agreement than the comments section shows.
#2. John and I have been defending the right use of swearing in story.(I deliberately refrain from using the phrase "artistic value" as it's not the "artistic" merit we've been defending but rather its makeup in regards to morality, which are two different things. Something can be "artistically" sound according to secular standards and still be morally bankrupt, and something can be morally flawless but have little artistic worth--e.g. Kincaide.)
#3. The subject of Christians habitually swearing would allow a different, and probably even more lively, discussion, and one in which I'm sure my views would be much closer to yours.
#4. John was (and is) responsible for the content of his blog posts. If his post had contained gratuitous or glorified swearing, he would be to blame. But, as I've tried to demonstrate through a multitude of words that--I hope--wanteth not sin, I believe the swearing in the strip was used rightly. Therefore, I believe he holds no blame. You, of course, may not agree. :)
#5. The word is half his that speaks and half his that hears it. —Montaigne I almost didn't include this quote because I don't think it applies to all things one hears in passing (e.g. swearing on the street). I included it mostly because I like to bug you without good reason (I admit it), but also because I do think that we hold some accountability for what we actively choose to watch and hear. By including the quote, I wasn't trying to prove that you approve of swearing in movies because I know that you don't. I wanted you to acknowledge the choice one makes to ingest swearing in movies. It cannot be compared to an instance in which one truly has no choice. If a swear word catches one by surprise in a movie, and the direction of the movie shows that many more will probably appear, then one can end the surprise factor by turning off the t.v.
If you didn't place watching a movie in the category of no control, you would have to acknowledge that either 1. you don't have as big a problem with swearing as your comments indicate or 2. you should start feeling guilty when you watch movies that contain it or 3. find some way to avoid numbers 1. and 2. that I haven't thought of yet. :)
I'm not trying to reprove you and would be completely wrong to do so; I'm just picking on what I see as an inconsistent approach, which is not to say my own life is not filled with inconsistencies or that constancy is the greatest good. I probably shouldn't have gotten involved with this discussion to begin with, but I was itching for some controversy, and Scott's blog hasn't had much of late. Plus, you're not as open as he is about the fact that I'm a bonafide pest. ;)
I assume you'll keep watching good movies. Here's a site you may find helpful that John showed to me last year. He enjoyed imagining the people sitting in front of the screen with open notebooks, straining to recognize any possible offense. Anyway, helpful or not, here it is. one last try
oops.
p.s. I wasn't really itching for controversy. I don't like much controversy, and I hope all this falls under the category of "friendly discussion."
Once I commented on John's blog, though, I just didn't stop. If I continue writing so much, I give you full permission to block me from your blog without fear of retribution. :)
Now that I have time to post a comment, probably no one will read this... For fear of restarted a controversy that grew tiresome before it even began, I will not comment on the comic-but in defense of our movie watching. While it is noteworthy to say we watch something with vulgar language and are okay with it...it is not entirely correct. I have two (maybe three) points to make.
1) We were not aware that this movie was going to be laden with vulgar language (you never know what you will see until you see it-or hear it or read it, etc. etc.)
2) We were NOT okay with it. Sometimes we turn movie's off entirely if we do not like the content. Other times, with a good story line, we choose not to waste our money and watch it anyhow. Whether we watch it completely or not, if it is laden with 'discretions' I garantee you, we will not waste our time watching it again.
3)THis is the big one though. It seems in one breathe you criticize us for watching movies with bad language and being okay with it (when you know that we are not)and then in the same breathe MOCK us for saying that we wanted to get rid of JUNK and stock up on good old classics. We have already stated that we do not appreciate fowl language, that we are trying to limit ourselves to it, and that we are stocking up on those good wholesome videos.
Knowing these things, I think it was a cheap shot you were taking. Anything we would do, it seems, would not be the 'correct' thing to do, and therefore you are right. Right?
"...but in defense of our movie watching."
First, I feel badly that you felt the need to defend yourself as neither I nor John think you're wrong to watch movies that contain swearing, and if I seemed judgemental, I apologize. (I had hoped the disclaimer at the end of my comment would communicate that.) The root discussion dealt with the moral implications of profanity in story and was never about what movies you watch personally or why you should or should not watch them. Movies first entered the discussion in order to clarify Matt's position (if he believed swearing in text was wrong, did he also believe swearing in movies was wrong?). The majority of this discussion, from my side, was spent trying to understand Matt's application of his definition of tolerance (i.e. beyond his control) to watching movies. I also was trying to understand his exact position because he believes that swearing is always gratuitous, but he also agreed with others' comments that seemed to support the belief that swearing is not always gratuitous.
"While it is noteworthy to say we watch something with vulgar language and are okay with it...it is not entirely correct."
As I said in my earlier comments to Matt's post, we know neither of you is "okay" with it. Matt argued that the profanity in movies was beyond his control, and I believe that a certain amount of acceptance is necessary in order to continue watching a movie that contains something one disagrees with, even though I know neither of you condones profanity. The fact that you sometimes turn off a movie highlights the fact that a choice is involved. I wasn't criticizing the fact that you watch those movies (because I don't think all movies use profanity wrongly); I just didn't think you were powerless against their content. We're probably obscuring common ground, too, through our different phrasing.
"THis is the big one though. It seems in one breathe you criticize us for watching movies with bad language and being okay with it (when you know that we are not)and then in the same breathe MOCK us for saying that we wanted to get rid of JUNK and stock up on good old classics."
I don't know if this comment is addressed to John or to me as I never teased you about watching classics. (Mocking seems too harsh a word...) Truth be told, John never teased you about watching classics, either, only movies similar to The Sound of Music, which are only one segment of classic movies. He has gotten rid of the majority of our movies in the past three years, too (dozens upon dozens), and has stated half-seriously that he wants to stop watching any film made after 1965 (or somewhere around there; I can't remember). He used The Sound of Music because it exemplifies a particular type of classic movie. First, it's a musical (he dislikes musicals, and teases me when I sing songs from The Sound of Music) and, second, it belongs in the class of non-gritty films that usually appeal more to women than men (e.g. Anne of Green Gables, etc.). There is a world of difference between The Sound of Music and On the Waterfront (one of John's all-time favorite movies), though both are classic movies.
"...I think it was a cheap shot you were taking. Anything we would do, it seems, would not be the 'correct' thing to do, and therefore you are right. Right?"
As I said, the movies you choose to watch was a peripheral aspect to a broader discussion, and they were raised only to clarify Matt's position. I don't desire to tell you the "correct thing to do" because I don't know what that is, and even if I did, I'd be stupid and presumptious to tell you so over a blog! :) I do believe that some people shouldn't watch films or read books that contain swearing (my mom, for example, could not do so with a good conscience), but I also don't believe the presence of profanity in story is always wrong. It's an area in which lively debate can occur precisely because it's an area in which no clear statement exists on the "correct thing to do." And now, too late, I realize it's also an area of lively debate in which I should probably refrain from involving myself! :)
We desired neither to attack, to mock, or to offend, and I wish BlogLand had transferred the spirit of the comments along with the actual words. Discussions like this are not served well by taking place in type, rather than in person, as offense can occur when none is intended. As John said on his blog last week, "I'm sorry if you mistook this as a personal attack instead of a light (friendly) jab at the rumor that I heard that your attempt to create a movie collection for your family consists of "sound of music" type fare. (My light-heartedness surely would have been more apparent if we were together in person, preferably over a pint of ale)."
So, come and visit! If not, we'll be down at the end of June... :)
***WARNING: VERY LONG RESPONSE TO A CONVERSATION THREAD THAT I HAD ALREADY DROPPED****
Rebecca,
"1) We were not aware that this movie was going to be laden with vulgar language (you never know what you will see until you see it-or hear it or read it, etc. etc.)"
-->
Bullcaca. When you look at the back of the box and under the rating it gives reasons such as 'language' and 'nudity,' you should consider yourself forewarned. If you were trying to make this argument in 1973 or so, I might believe you. Nowadays there's something called the MPAA Movie Ratings System. If a film is rated 'R' it is guaranteed to have a word in it that you don't like or an exposed breast or two. You generally know what you're getting into. Most movies rated 'PG' contain language that you may find offensive (not to mention terrible plots and despicable worldviews). So it wasn't for nothing that Abby referred you to Screenit.com in one of her previous comments. There are so many ratings boards and decency monitors that there should never be any question as to a film's content.
I might buy this first argument in regard to my blog, that you came across these "offensive" words because you were unaware that they would be there. Fine, but now that you know the sort of evil ugliness of language that I will stoop to, if you are offended, then stop reading my blog. I guarantee that this will not be the last time that I offend you. I mean no offense, and the strip that I did post was meant both to edify and to give a taste of what I was reading at the time. I have a clean conscience and am convinced that I did no wrong.
I will not post anything on my blog that I would not let Mildred read (and Abigail and I differ here a bit). I would let Mildred read [if she could] the comic strip on my blog. I would not let her read all of Jimmy Corrigan. I think that the strip that I posted is at least a perfect starting point for discussing cruel uses of language and words that are ugly at best.
Several months ago we were at the library and saw a jeep parked there that was proudly displaying a bumper sticker that read, "fuck authority." If Mildred was old enough to read that, I would not have been ashamed or told her not to look at it or told her what an awful person the owner of the jeep was. I would have asked her to tell me what the message of the sticker was. Then, if she didn't catch on herself, I would have pointed out to her the irony of an individual displaying such a sticker on a vehicle registered properly with the state of New York, that in order to use most of the library's services he needed to submit himself to the authority of the library to obtain a card and abide by their rules. Even as this person was pathetically lashing out at authority, he was submitting to many different authorities.
I'm on a tangent here, but I feel the need to remind everyone that my blog continues to be family-friendly.
"2) We were NOT okay with it. Sometimes we turn movie's off entirely if we do not like the content. Other times, with a good story line, we choose not to waste our money and watch it anyhow. Whether we watch it completely or not, if it is laden with 'discretions' I garantee you, we will not waste our time watching it again."
-->
Again, if these 'discretions' upset you so much, why do you persist in continuing to go out and seek these movies? It is not necessary that you watch these films. Why do you feel like you need to tolerate these 'discretions' to be entertained? Wouldn't it be healthier to avoid them altogether?
The only reason that I brought up films in the first place is because I knew that Matt had seen 'Collateral' and it struck me as strange that he could sit through an entire film that had a great deal of swearing, but found the comic that I had posted to be offensive. I found this exceedingly strange, especially since I believe that the comic used "bad words" in a far more appropriately effective way than any film in recent memory.
I for one am becoming increasingly disenchanted by even the best of contemporary films and no longer feel like I need to see the new film with the Kaufman script or whatever.
My point was and is simply that the Newmans should not be watching films with this language if they find such language to be offensive, and that they do, in fact, have a choice in the matter as to whether or not they rent an r-rated movie or read a blog that they now know may at any moment contain 'offensive' language.
If they don't find this language to be offensive (or do and are nevertheless willing to tolerate it), then what was Matt's issue with my post?
and I'm going to take #3 in pieces...
"3)THis is the big one though. It seems in one breathe you criticize us for watching movies with bad language and being okay with it (when you know that we are not)"
-->
I do not know that you are not okay with it. If you weren't okay with it, you wouldn't be watching it. The difference is between an r-rated movie that you can be 99% certain contains cursing and a friend's blog where you did not expect such language. You can control the movie because there are many systems set in place to warn you of content. You could not have foreseen that the words would appear on my blog (since there was no warning and no real precedent).
So it's fine if you weren't okay with my post. I understand. But I can't understand how you can say that you're not okay with a film which uses such language when you know in advance that such language is likely to be used yet you continue to watch it anyhow. Given Matt's position as I understand it, that swearing is offensive, then I think that it's much worse to sit and absorb this stuff in your living room knowingly than it is to stumble across it unassumingly on my blog.
I criticize you for watching movies with bad language only because I'm arguing in the context of being put on the defensive for using bad language, accused of crudity by a man that watches movies that contain the same bad language that I'm being condemned for using. Why does he "tolerate" these movies? Is entertainment so important? Ah, but above you've mentioned you sometimes finish a movie so that you don't "waste your money." It comes down to the dollar. You paid good money to be cursed in front of. Might as well finish the swearing since it's okay if money is on the line. I should start charging people to read my blog.
"and then in the same breathe MOCK us for saying that we wanted to get rid of JUNK and stock up on good old classics."
-->
Well, I'm probably the culprit here, but I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I did make fun of Sound of Music. I always will. But I don't think that I or anyone else ever mocked you for wanting to "get rid of JUNK and stock up on good old classics." I laud you for getting rid of JUNK. Seriously, bravo! I just happen to disagree as to what is a "good old classic" if the Sound of Music and other musicals are representative of your choices. I don't think that it's mocking you or your family to tease Matt about such things. I wouldn't be his friend if I didn't tease him about it.
"We have already stated that we do not appreciate fowl language,"
-->
I, however, am always up for a conversation regarding poultry.
"that we are trying to limit ourselves to it,"
-->
Limit yourselves to fowl language?
"and that we are stocking up on those good wholesome videos."
-->
Again, I'll say that this is fine. If you've already made the decision to own a VCR/DVD Player, and raise your children in a home where they are free (even if they are limited as to what, when, and where) to watch movies, then by all means, please only buy movies that you feel would edify, wholesomely entertain, and/or instruct your children in righteousness. If a film does not do this, trash it.
Honestly, we agree on many things, and there should be no discord here. No one was trying to mock or belittle any member of the Newman family. You may feel free to take offense at the language used on my blog, but please don't misconstrue anything that has been written to be disparaging toward you at all. In other words, there is no personal offense intended.
Though we haven't known each other long and still don't know many things about one another... Nevertheless, I consider Matt to be one of my greatest friends and would certainly not ever wish to cause his family any harm or distress.
But I will continue to make fun of him at any and all times that I feel are appropriate (mostly anytime). If I ever seem harsh, it's not because I'm angry or mean or have no respect. I'm just being playful and like to push and poke and prod and puke.
BLEAGHGHGHAARRGGGHHH!!!!
"But I will continue to make fun of him [you] at any and all times that I feel are appropriate (mostly anytime). If I ever seem harsh, it's not because I'm angry or mean or have no respect. I'm just being playful and like to push and poke and prod and puke."
dido
What fun, I think this horse has nine lives.
Well, truly, you both have the uncanny ability to charm while putting one in their place. It is not many, who can pull off such a FEET. :-)
I must say, I am downright ashamed that I wrote FOWL instead of foul. oops.
I hate to tell you John, you think Sound of Music is bad? THink of THIS! Matt and I want to get the entire 6 season set of Little House on the Praire dvd's. GASP!!!! 8-o
I have one other confession to make. I don't usually look at ratings because as you said, PG can be just as bad as R. PG-13 can have sex, and FOWL language more so than that of an R rated movie. I just look at the jacket cover and read the back. If it seems interesting and doesn't look to be filled with filth...then, "HEY! I found one!!!!" Perhaps I should pay more attention.
Post a Comment