Veritas numquam perit

Location, location, location; culture, culture, culture.

A lot of what I’ve read in the comments at Tim Challies’ post “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.” about the Bible’s use of offensive or less-than-discreet language reflects - not the vulgarity of the Bible but - the difference between a culture of concrete and steel and the culture of the Bible.

Most of you likely grew up in the city, where you didn’t get the opportunity to see animals doing what animals do with the equipment God gave them - in some cases, most generously - on a daily basis. For people that grew up on a farm or ranch - or merely in the proximity of domestic or wild animals - there’s nothing offensive about the Bible’s language, whether in the OT or NT. In fact, it was probably a rare week or even day that went by without seeing cattle, sheep, horses, or goats engaging in sex.

People living during the period of time described by the Bible, and people who lived in those times who were utilized by God to inscribe the Bible, weren’t prudes when it came to sex and basic bodily functions. Nowadays we blush if we see two dogs making puppies in the park, but not so the people of that period. Too, since people didn’t “curb their camels” back then, stepping in excrement was not uncommon (albeit no less unpleasant) and a reference to it would not have been regarded as horrific or shameful. We need to read and exposit Scripture based on the culture in which and to which it was written, not our own.

Have you ever wondered about Isaiah wandering around with his butt hanging out for three years?

1 In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it,
2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.’ And he did so, going naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, ‘Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush,
4 so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.’”¹

I doubt that it was terribly uncommon in those days to see the backside of others; for those of us who have visited nursing homes regularly, it’s not so infrequent now, either. It’s not pretty, but it happened and happens, and we need not go shrieking off in a pseudo-spiritual, maniacal frenzy like three monkeys that see, hear, and speak no evil - when it isn’t evil at all.

As far as Paul’s reference to the Judaizers’ castrating themselves, it was not an uncommon or unheard of thing for such a thing to happen during the rite of circumcision during those times. A slip of the knife and a man was barred from the Temple for life. It happened then (and even now) and Paul’s comment, in addition to being apt, may also illustrate that such people were unfit for the Kingdom of God. To the people of that day, however, such a reference wasn’t as shocking as it might be to us. Might crude comments have been made to men who were made eunuchs by men? Sure, but that doesn’t show up in the Bible.

It is only with considerable ignorance of OT and NT culture that someone can read the Bible and come away thinking that it is vulgar, crass, or crude. If you learn to read through the lenses of the people to whom a particular passage or verse was written - not that I have perfected this, but I’m working on it - then the notion of God using inappropriate words, allusions, or metaphors disappears.

The Bible spoke to everyday people about everyday things that everybody was familiar with and only the most Pharisaical were offended by. And, for what it’s worth, there is a big difference between the Bible or people giving offense and others taking offense. As someone who works with sexually addicted Christian men and women, I don’t find their language or descriptions offensive. I find it sad and tragic that they practice - and perfect - such behavior, but I try to listen compassionately and not worry about my own tender little ears.

Neither, however, do I respond in similar fashion in order to “connect” with them. To “speak their language” is no different than a forty-something mother dressing like her fourteen year old daughter: it’s ugly and results in disgust, not intimacy. I wonder if Driscoll and others, in order to “connect” with others, fart in public if their audience does? What a wonderful, shared experience that would be, eh?

Paul said that he became like those without the law but was quick and careful to add, “though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9.21).

Not so, I’m afraid, with those today who know that the quickest way to draw a crowd is to set yourself on fire. If you - and I mean you, not God - want to build a church quickly then go outside the parameters of what is prescribed and proscribed in the Bible and people will come by the busload. Espousing correct theology is nothing - even if it is the idol of Reformed, Baptist, Dispensational, Charismatic, Catholic, or any other doctrine - if it is not manifested in a life that reflects the holiness of God in Jesus Christ.

People like Driscoll, Campolo, or McLaren are not all that dissimilar to Howard Stern: their audiences are superficially different but beneath it all the titilation of flirting with sin is exactly the same.

None of what I have said should be construed to imply that I have not, cannot, or do not use profanity at times: I do. But I don’t try to buttress (vague pun intended) it with untenable arguments based on misunderstood passages in the Bible. It’s my issue, my problem, my sin - and by the grace of God I’m getting better. And I’m getting better not by defiling the holiness of God and bringing Him down to my level of ungodliness, but by allowing the Spirit to continue the enormous amount of work He has to do on me.

_______

¹ If you want to try to argue that the “shame of Egypt” refers to bare buttocks, then you’ll have to make it refer to being “young and old” and being “barefoot,” too, since the phrases are in apposition. The shame of Egypt was its defeat and the capture of its people, who were then paraded off to exile in poverty.