Any serious moral theologian will soon realize that words can be damaging, venomous, and cruel. It would be a mistake, nevertheless, to assume malicious intent is conveyed by certain phrases just because there is a perceived cultural association between malice and the words. James 3:9-10 emphasizes the importance of not degrading bearers of God's image using speech, but the fact that the text uses the word "cursing" does not mean that the verses condemn using profanity to express anger, even intense anger, towards a specific person ("damn you"). Just because the use of profanity is sometimes called "cursing" does not mean that the Bible means by this word exactly what modern Westerners do.
There is a truth about linguistic meaning that is at the foundation of the whole of linguistics: language means whatever its users want it to. Though people might consider aiming profanity at a person an inherently offensive or belittling thing, doing so does not have to be either of those things. A person might playfully aim profanity towards someone in a joking manner, and both parties can realize that there is nothing belittling about this. Inversely, a person could use words that are not considered profanity by their culture to criticize someone, meaning to degrade the other party without appearing to. Intent determines the meaning of a speaker's words, and nothing more.
It follows from this that someone can say "Fuck him/her" about another person out of deep anger without actually degrading them. After all, since linguistic meaning is a construct of every respective communicator, the words alone would not have any inherent association with a cruel attitude. Listeners would be irrational to assume that a speaker has disregarded the full personhood of someone else just by directing profanity at that person. Malice is not the only possible motivator behind such words. If people are confused about the intended meaning of a phrase used by another communicator, they can simply ask about it.
People can be very selective about admitting the true nature of language. Because our words mean whatever we intend them to, all moral obligations regarding speech ultimately reduce down to having legitimate attitudes behind words, not the mere use or avoidance of particular words. There is nothing wrong with simply directing profanity at a person out of legitimate frustration with them--or out of a cordial sense of humor. When uttered at a person, profanity does not have to be a degrading, belittling thing.
I've also seen Ephesians 4:29 come up as an argument against profanity. Personally this verse has been used on me a couple times to not watch or like certain content for an adult audience like South Park (which I do enjoy) or find dirty/dark jokes funny.
ReplyDeleteIt's also very possible to say degrading, terrible things to somebody without using a single swear word! If someone verbally attacks someone in a nonhumorous way with intent of hurting them, it's bad with or without the aid of the top four letter words.
So in a way,"bad words" are anything you say that tears somebody down instead of building them up. I think that's what the verse is talking about when it says "unwholesome talk", right?
People who think Ephesians 4:29 opposes profanity have to assume that the Bible means by "unwholesome talk" exactly what some in Western culture might mean by it. It's like when some people see words/phrases like "justice" or "sexual immorality" in the Bible and assume that the Bible defines those things in a way that matches their traditions or subjective preferences. I love dark jokes too, so I can totally relate to having someone discourage them on eisegetical grounds!
DeleteThe definition of harmful speech that you mentioned is very important. Regardless of how someone communicates malice or an intent to degrade, regarding or treating people as less than they are is wrong. As long as we do not mean anything illicit by our words, there is nothing wrong with simply making certain sounds with our mouths.