Dirty Words

I think about a lot of weird things.  I don’t usually share them because they might offend someone or make someone not want to be my friend or make someone think badly of me .  They might reflect poorly on Jesus.  They might be a stumbling block to someone.  They might alienate me from people I’d like to be a part of.  But I am beginning to feel slightly like a fraud.  So.

I’ve been thinking about “curses” or cuss words or  swear words or whatever you call them where you are.  I generally try not to use them but they do occasionally slip out and frankly, there are times when a curse word is the most apt in a given situation.  I realize that probably makes me a vulgar person and a bad Christian.  Consider this my confession and a statement of my resolve to do better.  But I think I might be in good company.

I’ve counted five different kinds of curses.  In order of offensiveness from least offensive to most:

1. a vulgar word that describes something literal such as a body part or excrement
2. an interjection, usually given in a moment of surprise
3. an expression of dismay
4. an oath or swearing
5. an insult – a vulgar word describing someone or something figuratively as a body part or excrement or some other bad thing

I think the figurative curse words are far more offensive and more powerful than literal ones.  Using a slang word for actual fecal matter is not nearly as potent as Isaiah comparing our righteousness to used feminine hygiene products* or  Paul saying this.  Or John Piper saying that sometimes God kicks our ass or what he said about the prosperity “gospel.”

‘Suck’ is a weird one because it’s all about context.  Saying that I’m sucking on a cough drop to soothe my sore throat isn’t a curse, but saying that this sore throat sucks is considered a mild expletive.  If it means what I think it means then it’s a lot raunchier than many supposedly “harder” words.  I mean, sucks what exactly?  Don’t answer that.

And what about the ‘F word’?  I had a global studies teacher in high school who told us it was an acronym.  A few years later someone else also told me it was an acronym but of a different sort. Both sources were likely wrong.  Or does it come from the German?  More importantly, what does it mean?  I know that literally it describes sexual intercourse, but what does “F you” mean?  Is it a suggestion that the person should go and do that for a while?  Or is it a request from the speaker to engage in that activity?

Foreign curses are interesting too.  I know a woman who can say “kiss my butt” in at least three different languages.  I grew up in a neighborhood with a large Italian population so I know a few of those.  There’s one, usually considered to be the equivalent of the American F word, but which is in my opinion much more graphic.  Add the Italian slang for heiny to the imperative form of the verb “fare” and you’ve got something truly gross.

Y’know what’s even better than outright cursing, though?  The things people say to avoid it.  “For crying out loud.”  “That stinks.”  “Up your nose with a rubber hose.”  I have a friend who actually says “Sugar Honey Iced Tea.”

Alrighty then.  I don’t really have a point to all this so I guess I don’t have a nice way to end it either.

*Yes, that’s what it means.

Mind of the Maker preface – chapter 2

Cindy at Ordo Amoris is hosting a book club for Dorothy Sayers’ Mind of the Maker.  I’m trying to catch up and will probably be posting out of order.

Sayers begins, in the preface, by saying that the book is an explanation of a few of the Christian beliefs.  She takes great pains to say that she is not defending the truth of these creeds, but is only explaining them.

The first chapter makes the case that the creeds are necessary and foundational to Christianity.  Within the context of Christianity, they are not optional, they are not opinions.  As the late Christopher Hitchens said in a 2009 interview with Unitarian minister, Marilyn Sewell, “I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.”  (Excellent interview, btw.  He was a really bright man and knew what he was criticizing.)

Sayers goes on to say that while the moral code imposed by Christianity may be arbitrary, the law upon which it is based is not.  By law, Sayers means something observable, discoverable by experience.

In the second chapter, Sayers explains that the language she is using is analogical and that it must be analogical.  She maintains that all language is analogical because it is all comparative.  We cannot know anything except by comparison.  She urges her readers, therefore, to accept the necessity and the limits of analogy.

After a caveat not to take the analogy beyond its intended limits, she begins with the belief, as written in Genesis, that people are made in the image of God.   Her explanation here is that the only thing revealed about God in these first chapters of the Bible is that he created and so, if humans are like Him, then we must be creators too.

While I believe that Sayers is correct that God is Creator and has endowed humanity with creativity, I think her definition of “the image and likeness of God” is too limited.  I concede that I perhaps do not grasp the fullness and weight of what it means to be a creator, but with what small understanding I do have, I believe that being made in God’s image encompasses a great deal more than being a creator.

It is worth noting, that Sayers seems to identify strongly as a creator herself, so she seems to be, thus far in my reading, looking at the creeds through that lens.  It isn’t wrong, but it is particular.

Roots of American Order – chapter 2, “The Law and the Prophets”

Cindy is hosting a book club for Russell Kirk’s The Roots of American Order.  I thought I’d pop in this week.

Kirk’s premise in this book is that American order grew out of the civilizations of the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and the time of the Reformation, particularly in Britain.  Chapter two deals exclusively with the Hebrews.

Kirk contends that though we receive no political system from the Hebrews, we have inherited a moral order from them.  Through history God revealed himself to the Hebrews to be just and merciful and good – not capricious and not pleased by external rituals alone.

The communities of the early European settlers of this continent were built upon their extensive understanding of the the Bible, including the Old Testament, accepting both halves of the Bible as equally valid and true, and on the influence of European Christian denominations and leaders, particularly John Calvin.  I bet you Presbyterians out there understand far better than I can the depth and outworkings of the high esteeem in which they  understood “covenant.”

Kirk further says that the communities of the early settlers, though deeply influenced by the Hebrew Law and the Prophets, they were really and truly Christian.  What he doesn’t say, is that the Christian understanding of the Law and the Prophets is dependent on love.  

I found the influence of Calvin interesting, and the contrast between the French and American revolutions.  Whether a society views people as inherently good or inherently wicked would certainly have a bearing on the laws that that society creates.  I wonder what Charlotte Mason would say?

I also liked his explanation of the Hebrew understanding of time.

I am early in my homeschooling career, but through this time I have been influenced by those who make the claim that education is not about mere utility.  The height of praise is not that something is simply useful, so I was disappointed that Mr. Kirk spent a good many pages describing and explaining how early American settlers and the Founding Fathers understood the Old Testament but in the next breath says it doesn’t matter if what they believed is true.  Maybe I am provincial, but I believe it matters because if the reasons and causes and the roots of the roots are not true, then the frame of order is arbitrary and merely expedient rather than good.  If this frame is arbitrary then any other might be put in its place and even when it proves practically disastrous, calling it “good” or “bad” will be meaningless irrelevance.  It matters to me personally because if we can’t even believe that a historical Moses existed then how are we to believe that God was born of a virgin and took on Himself the sins of the world and died and rose again?  And if He did not rise then our faith is futile.  Here is a relevant article by an atheist who also values truth.

Here are some petty criticisms:

• The typos alone are driving me crazy.  I know that’s petty of me, but I find it distracting.
• The flip-flopping between Yaweh and Jehovah even after explaining that Jehovah is a mispronunciation is annoying – pick a name and be consistent already.
• I’m no Old Testament scholar, but even I caught the erroneous attribution of Micah 6:8 to Hosea – unless it’s in Hosea too and I just can’t find it???  Those kinds of errors worry me because I’m taking on faith a lot of the other stuff he’s written and I’m hoping he’s got it right.