Profanity: Nuancing the Conversation

S**t and f**k are not, in themselves, bad words. In their original meanings and still in some places they are simply synonyms for excrement and copulation respectively. Profanity is not made up of words with four letters. Profanity is a state of the heart. What makes a person profane is not the collection of letters and words he uses, but the angry or dirty or naughty or titillating intent of the heart when he uses them.

It is possible theoretically to use the "s" or "f" word without being profane at all, if one uses them as simple straight-forward terms for waste or copulation. I would not recommend doing this, since in fact cultural use has so influenced our perception of these terms that they are equated with profanity even if no profanity is intended. If at all possible, unless we have a really good reason for it, we need not risk confusing people by using words that they think are dirty just because we know a strict literal meaning that allows their use. Why bother when there are plenty of other more reputable words to use?

Apparently though, there are times when really strong words are justified. Paul seems to use a strong, even socially edgy term for excrement in Philippians 3:8. The Greek word that the ESV translates "rubbish" should more accurately be rendered dung or manure or excrement. Some argue that the term he chooses (skubalah) goes beyond a mere reference to waste; that it is a colloquial term meant to communicate the repulsiveness and filthiness of waste. They argue that it might even be equivalent to a bold, disgusted use of the word "s**t" (see Mark Driscoll/Doug Wilson, Chapter Two of Driscoll's Religion Saves). At least Mr. Driscoll, whose ministry I highly respect in many ways, seems to find in this some justification for the use of edgy, even crude terms in ministry and life.

Having read their sources and the Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words' entry on skubalah, I am not convinced that their conclusion is at all necessary or accurate. The term Paul uses clearly does speak of the righteousness produced by our good works as no better than waste. And Paul is clearly trying to communicate that we should think of our self-made righteousnes in the most vile and repulsive of categories.

But this is not to say that Paul is coming anywhere near to cursing or being profane, or justifying the use of profanity. He's simply using a strong term of revulsion in its literal sense to describe what is truly revolting in the sight of God: the dung of self-made righteousness. Friends: any attempts at creating a righteousness of our own before a holy God are as revolting and disgusting in God's sight as a pile of filthy fresh stinking dung is in ours.

Granted, there is shock in Paul's words, but there is no profanity. He is not using words about waste because he regularly thinks about waste or lingers at the bathroom level in his mind. He simply tries to find the strongest word he can think of to describe the filth of human righteousness. Paul is not speaking of the vile for profane reasons; nor is he using words that refer to holy and sacred matters irreverently. He's simply calling self-made righteousness what it is.

To conclude from this that we can freely use words about filth or sex or hell or damnation without careful regard for their vile or holy or fearsome significance is to go beyond what is allowed. In my opinion, it is to be profane.

Am I making any sense?