Tagged “Blog & Mablog”

“More on Speech”

More on Speech

Topic: Hamartiology

The apostle Paul took a dim view of dirty talk. In Colossians 3:8 he uses the word aischrologia to prohibit filthy communication. In our previous discussion of this (on Eph. 5:4), we noted that we need to take our directions on this from the robust apostles and not from the prim Victorians. Now where might the line be between speech that one or the other might prohibit? A simple rule that will deal with most of the issues would be this one: avoid all speech that is trying to be dirty in the way prohibited, speech that depends on and needs the shock effect.

Posted by Douglas Wilson — 1/28/2008 12:49:52 PM

 

“bitches” & “boobs”

We have had publishing events like 50 Shades. We have had raunchy routines from comediennes like Sarah Silverman. We have had rap artists cutting up their bitches. We have had reality television set ups that would clog the filters of a sewage treatment plant for a major urban area. We have gone from the time when Rhett Butler saying “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” was a national event, to the point now where it is a national event if the hostess of any given awards show doesn’t fall out of her dress. Our ruling elites, pretty much all of them, are gathered on Lot’s front porch, trying to find the doorknob while yelling incoherently about their incoherent lusts. Not only do they want to rape the angels, they are mortally offended that some sports guys said boobs on CNN.
Douglas Wilson

“When you speak, are you respectful of the presence of women? Does that kind of thing matter to you at all?”

And this is what you must do. Run an inventory on your vocabulary. Make a list of words that you use that fall into this general category. Having made the list, see what happens when you ask the following questions about them.

Is your use of such words a matter of self-conscious Christian discipleship? If not, then stop saying them. Who taught you this word? Who are you imitating in using it yourself? How confident are you that there are no strings attached to the word? How confident are you that you learned nothing else along with the word? Is your use of these words paired up with an ungodly attitude? Is it connected to Ezekiel’s prophetic use or to some hard-R sex comedy? Jesus says that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34). Is your speech a fresh water spring or a sewage pipe? When you speak, are you respectful of the presence of women? Does that kind of thing matter to you at all? Are you aware of the difference between not speaking like a gentleman all alone, which is bad enough, and when you are with others not speaking like a gentleman in such a way as to insult a lady? When you speak, is it for the edification of the hearer, or is it to get a laugh for your own glory? Do you speak for them or for you? And are you like a poor stand-up comedian who tells dirty jokes because nervous laughter is better than no laughter? Do you use the existence of verbal Platonists as an excuse to be a libertine? As we finish, consider the explicit teaching of the apostle Paul on the subject. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Eph. 4:29).

When Paul says this, he is assuming that we will do the hard work of identifying what corrupt communication is. He knew that every language is different, and we could say every last word in our lexicon of filthy talk to the apostle and he, not knowing English, wouldn’t have anything to say about any of them. But he would nonetheless expect English-speaking Christians to think like grown-ups. He would expect them to teach their children not to say certain things, and the fact that these prohibited words cannot be found itemized in Scripture should not trouble us at all. It is not legalism to understand the principle and apply it in new territory. And so there are your marching orders on this topic — no corrupt communication.
Douglas Wilson

“Go on, guess.”

So if someone with a long enough face to be a dowager from Human Resources tells me that I am no longer permitted, as a cis-white-male, to make any observations or comparisons, metaphorical or otherwise, about any aspect of the female anatomy, guess what I am going to do? Guess what my next blog post is going to be about?

Go on, guess.
Douglas Wilson

“Small-Breasted Biddies: A Reprise”

Small-Breasted Biddies: A Reprise
Let us be frank. Nothing will be achieved through pretense. Although I do not belong to the same school of thought as does Travis, I have offended the feminists (along with not a few Christians cowed by the feminists) in a related area, on multiple occasions.

‘So feminism — smash the patriarchy feminism — wants us to be ruled by harridans, termagants, harpies and crones. That sets the tone, and the pestering is then made complete by small-breasted biddies who want to make sure nobody is using too much hot water in the shower, and that we are all getting plenty of fiber. And if anyone reads these words and believes that I am attacking all women by them, that would provide great example of why we should not entrust our cultural future to people who can’t read’ (Here).

‘We like the word authentic, but we detest the reality. A fading beauty in Beverly Hills walks into an upscale bistro, her skin stretched out with botox, her breasts as fine a pair as DuPont could make them, her hair the color of nothing found on earth, and yet she double checks with the waiter (twice) to be sure that her salad will have hormone-free chicken. Why? Either because she is committed to going all natural, which would not seem to be the case, or because her table is only big enough for one hormone queen. She is insisting that the chicken be the authentic one’ (Here).

‘And briefly, the last distinction we must have is the distinction between the wise and intelligent women who understood exactly what Wilkin was getting at, who have dealt with real instances of such a haunting, and who actually have had a bloviating pastor modulate into his ‘pastor voice’ when answering a simple question, and the clueless women who blindly liked Wilkin’s article on Facebook, but who are themselves pushy broads, twinkies in tight tops, or waifs with manga eyes’ (Here).

What am I doing here? Or, as some might want to put it, what do I think I am doing?
Douglas Wilson

Repost

Our ministry to Steven, in other words, has not been conducted at the expense of any children in our church community, or in a way that puts any of them at risk.
Douglas Wilson

“Beware of millstones. . .”

Acknowledge your children all need to be converted (Eph. 2:3), but do not do this with unequal weights and measures. If you apply impossible standards to your children, you are causing them to stumble. Beware of millstones as you bring them to Christ (Matt. 18:6).
Douglas Wilson

“and shall His people withhold an amen?”

Shall the Lord Jesus promise to take a millstone and tie it around the necks of the photographers and graphic designers for National Geographic, and throw the lot of them into the sea (Matt. 18:6), and shall His people withhold an amen? The secular state hates childhood. How many children have you dismembered so far? When you are willing to cut off their heads in the womb, and to sell off their parts, then it would seem that cutting off their genitals for the sake of your ideological kinks would be child’s play. Do we hate you? How could we not? Do we love you? We are offering you the death of Jesus Christ, which makes it possible for you and your vile condition to be separated. Do we love you? Of course we love you? Here is Jesus Christ — come to Him. Come now, before the night falls. It won’t be the kind of night that you can dance away.
Douglas Wilson

“we do not want a millstone tied around our stiff necks. . . We do not want to be thrown into the depth of the sea.”

The commandment to honor parents is the first one with a generational promise, and which the apostle Paul points to (Eph. 6:2–3). But it is not the first commandment with a generational rider. The Second Word says this — that those who bow down to images are guilty of “iniquity,” and that their hatred of God will be visited to three and four generations (Ex. 20:5). In our worship of the Lord, we delight to include our children together with us in our worship, and this includes bringing them to the Table. But it is not enough to just include your children. What are you including them in? We do not bring them into a worship service with graven or painted images in it because we do not want a millstone tied around our stiff necks (Matt. 18:6). We do not want to be thrown into the depth of the sea. We want to present ourselves to the Lord at the last day, together with the children He has given us.
Douglas Wilson