In this episode of Ask Doug, Pastor Doug Wilson answers the question, "In a recent blog (bit.ly/2F1kkwb) you used the C-word. How come?" Ask Doug is presented by Canon Press.
When my husband and I were dating/courting. We had purity rings and waited for marriage. 18 years and 3 kids later here we are going strong. Our dating experience was wonderful. We actually talked and got to know one another before getting physical. If I could I would do it again. We’re expecting our kids to find partners the same way. It’s a much more sane approach.
This is the first time I've ever heard a theology of the righteous use of what would appear to be "coarse language." Thank you for this. Much to chew on, and well worth the listen. Thankful for the desire to take seriously that the law of God is meant to indicate wisdom for all men, in all nations, to learn how to properly take dominion over all thoughts to the glory of God.
The amazing thing to me is that when Nadia Bolz-Weber says something with an incidental minutia of truth, we are willing to say, "Oh she has a point." But when Doug writes an article that has a bad word in it, no one is willing to ask whether or not he has a point.
It's as offensive as you can get with women, and it's always amazing to me if people who think it's not that big a deal act like they're huffy about racism. A Doug apologist chiding one to think before speaking is like a hyena preaching vegetarianism. You do a poor job acting like you care about racially insensitive terms if you brush off misogynistic ones. Bad news: he doesn't care about either.
@@whitespirit26 Claiming he cares about neither is ingenious and reactionary, and pretending that the use of a word that is demeaning to women has the same weight as a word with the history of the 'N' word is something that can only be genuinely done without actually accounting for the history, current use, and current reaction to the words comparatively. And this is coming from a person who thinks people get way too offended and reactionary over the use of words in a way that is entirely verbal with no real fear of immediate physical consequence except by over-reactionary offended people.
'Swearing', in its modern context, is essentially akin to slang. It has become so common that any potential 'shock value' from its usage is relegated primarily to those who are societally expected to *not* use such vocabulary. Ie; a 'Christian'. In a literal sense, 'curse words' are no different from any other word. They are all just noises we are uttering from our mouths. These noises are made for the intention of communication. There is no inherent magical properties to sounds coming out of our throats. God is more concerned with our intent, above all, whilst man is generally fixated on one's actions or results. That being said, while God is unlikely to hold you accountable for using a so-called profane word, the target audience of your message may be distracted, and your point lost on them. It is more to do with societal, man-made taboos rather than a truly grievous sin of course, but still - it would look like you wound up wasting your time.
4:22 Doug says that people fall all over themselves to make room for, make excuses for outrageous behavior of the Left, explaining away and contextualizing it. But then, Doug does exactly the same thing in the second half of the video, telling listeners that he is doing things just like Ezekiel or Isaiah did, or not even as obscene as Ezekiel and Isaiah. Of course, all of this could have been avoided if he simply didn't use such language in the first place. If he believes people got distracted from the point he was making by the language he used, perhaps he could simply not use such language. It's pretty simple. And no, I don't think what he did was righteous, any more than I think the Left's obscene behavior is righteous.
I wish to understand what Doug meant by purity culture damage as much as abortion culture. Also, its good to know I'm not the only Christian that understands that cussing and cursing are not always the same.
So from what I gather: 1. He did it for “shock value”. 2. Points at the bad things THEY did. 3. He intends to do it again. 4. Quotes Ephesians to show he is knowledgeable. 5. Misuses the terms God swearing by Himself to excuse his behavior. 6. Invents the term “Godly Obsenity”. And the list goes on…
There is no place for obscenity in the Christian vocabulary. Not even to prove a point!!! "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, bt that which is goo to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." Epheisans 4:29
Here is some powerful harsh Biblical language. There is a time and place for it. Really appreciate the video. Psalm 58:1-11 Focus on; Psalm 58:1-3 Psalm 58:6 Psalm 58:8 (yikes 😮 ) Psalm 58:10-11
I see the point, but the issue lies in the way we have been told, and tell our children, that certain words themselves are evil. That the f word is bad, no matter what context, same for the b word, s word, and all of those words. So as soon as someone uses those words, and they are supposed to be Christian, then they see it as wrong. And because you are doing something wrong, your point becomes secondary. They feel that they need to call you out. Had you not used that word, they would be talking about your point. My question would be, where is the line. Obviously we aren't going to be okay with our small children using this Godly language. Can we use it on the daily? So long as the context approves of it, and it falls withing the Godly language, then we can use it freely?
Hi Francisco -- Great questions, and I think the answer is "you must have wisdom to know when to use language like this." For example, in defense of the Gospel of grace, the Apostle Paul uses the rude Greek word for animal poop, often translated in Phil 3:8 as "dung." However there's a different four-letter English word for dung that many have argued would be a more accurate translation. If you'd like a more thorough analysis of this and other such tough language, check out Doug Wilson's book "A Serrated Edge" (www.amazon.com/Serrated-Edge-Biblical-Trinitarian-Skylarking-ebook/dp/B004M8SVWA/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=a+serrated+edge&qid=1560788715&s=gateway&sr=8-1)
Exactly, Francisco. We teach our children to never, ever use words like the N word because they put down an entire ethnicity in the most foul way. It's the exact same thing here: using a disgusting word like this against women, a word disrespecting their bodies as well as their beings, is without excuse.
Not everyone teaches their kids that. Ha! A lot of us teach our kids that these words are dangerous, like a sharp knife. But they can be safe if used properly. It takes practice to learn when and how to use both things appropriately and watching your parents and being helped along in how to use them is necessary.
@@whitespirit26 I would aggree on that as a white person there is really no place for using the N word, except maybe quoting it in an essay in very specific circumstances. Or writing a story to bring out the brutality of the word. (this could change in following generations) However this is mainly because of the history and racist umph of the N word, merely saying it in almost any context, shows contempt towards black people. However the C word is not this category, it does not in and of itself alienate a people group. It is a descriptive word of female genitalia which is used as cuss word towards people. Doug is not advocating for calling people the C word by the way. There could be valid uses of it. I wonder would you think it's a sin to just say aloud by yourself directed at nobody? What if a foreigner said it after hearing it, would it be a sin even if they didn't know what it meant? Is the word intrinsically sinful? Let me tell you what I would consider a valid use of the S word for example. (important ingredient is that it's non-sexual) Let's say you have a non-Christian who you love, trying to bring to Christ. Their sister has just died, they're are in a turmoil. Emotions all of over the place. They need you, their friend to comfort them. "That's terrible," "that's rubbish", may not cut it. But "That's really S____", would probably make up the distance. This at least fits the typical non-Christian where I live in the UK.
Because I've truly esteemed dear Pastor Doug (a bit > half through his Romans series sermons) it's sad that he conveniently avoids any mention of the word of Christ (Rom 10:17 so then the faith is by hearing, and hearing through Rhema-word of Christ) and how badly he's violating Him: Eph 4:29 KJV 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. Col 3:8 KJV But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Sadly its part of his REacting to evil instead of ACTing according to Scripture whereby we measure our distance from the former instead of the latter which is to be our sole authority and measure. Sad dear Doug pretends to excuse himself by appealing to supposed but unpersuasive Scripture examples as if he's attained to the same level as Scripture's human authors. We need the power of Christ's HOLY Spirit, not mere human "shock value" like the world uses. This is a troubling aspect of personality cults like Wilson's and Piper's and Chandler's, all of whom I love and reverse, but not without wise caution. God save us.
Dear Canon Press, you suggest that that there is a word used in Philippians 3:8 that constitutes bad language. This is the word translated "dung" in the KJV Bible. Alas, the Greek word is translated "loss, damage, punishment" in every Classical, Biblical and Hellenistic Greek dictionary on the market. So can you back up your intimation that the KJV word for "dung" is used by Paul in the profane sense of "s**t"?
No, this is pure foolishness. I've heard many Christians justify using vulgar slang or profanity by comparing it to what either Jesus said or what the prophets said. I doubt very much the motivation for using that particular word has anything to do with holiness. Dropping F-bombs, S-bombs, and C-bombs is inappropriate for so many reasons. 1) It does violate Ephesians 4:29 and 5:4. It's rotten, worthless, filthy talk that is of poor quality. Calling a woman the C-word is unnecessary because there are other words that could've been used to make the point. 2) The fact that you justify it shows that there is actually no limit to which words you think are suitable for use or not. That is subjective. You can use any vulgar term and then compare it to the words of Jesus and the prophets, but where is your guideline? If the C-word is acceptable, then at what point will you stop? 3) Whenever a Christian attempts to make a form of speech holy that even the unsaved world knows is vulgar, it makes me wonder if they understand 1 Peter 1:13-16. We are not to sound like the thug on the street cussing out a woman or dialogue from a profanity-laced R-rated movie; we need to conduct ourselves with proper, appropriate speech. Jesus says some serious things about idle speech in Matthew 12:34-37; as believers we need to guard our tongues and speak correctly. James 3:5-12 talks much about controlling the tongue. Perhaps Mr. Wilson needs to read those verses because as a pastor would he think the C-word would be appropriate to use in front of his congregation if he was verbally speaking on the subject he wrote about?
Doug should have used the "B" word, as in Baal...if the woman gathered the purity rings, melted them down, and made an image to present to Gloria Steinem... Exodus 32:1-6
I respect you but I believe you've stumbled into justification of at they very least a grey area. If we respond to persons in abhorrent behavior and don't sound any different than the world, it's a problem, we are to be called out and separate.
This whole conversation reminds me of a time I was babysitting two boys and the one tattled on the other "He used the C word!" And I said "Which one?!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If you want to be like any of the prophets, be like Isaiah who beheld the Lord Himself in His holy temple “Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.” -Isaiah 6
We are living in a society now where evil, godless reprobates have normalized wickedness. We should shun it in every form and pronounce God's wrath on those that are spreading sin like a cancer. We dont need pithy responding "in kind" or in like manner. We need absolute rebuke and hate for what these serpents do and are.
Agreed -- and Doug is following in Jesus' and Paul's footsteps when he uses coarse language for those perverting the Gospel and being celebrated for it.
@@CanonPress He crossed the line and should have just rebuked the ones guilty and pronounced God's judgement and wrath on them. His use of that word was uncalled for. He's not following in Jesus' and Paul's footsteps. Don't try to justify it.
@@GodsTruthMinistries Oh, I'm not trying to justify it -- it's God who justifies. If you aren't interested in discussing whether there's a proper time for coarse language, no need to read on: Eg when the Apostle Paul used the Greek word most accurately translated s*** (Phil 3:8) or when Ezekiel was far more obscene than Doug has ever been (Ezek 23:20).
@@CanonPress There's a time for "coarse language" but you're missing the point and I won't argue since your mind is made up and you've dug your heels in to defend him. Doug Wilson has bigger problems than his speech. He preaches a false gospel of salvation by works, by adding repentance of sins as a condition for salvation. According to Gal. 1:8,9 he preaches an accursed message, and he's anathema in that regard. He's got bigger fish to fry than his writings in response to other false ministers.
He quotes the passage of "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel." I assume that the c-word is the gnat. In the context of the verse (Matthew 23:23,24) Christ actually says both are important. This is so stupid. You say that you use foal language to draw attention to the point you are making. Then you say that when you do it, no one is focused on the point you are making but the word; so it doesn't work on a practical level either. Why use it? Stop doing it. I think you will be far better off.
Surely someone like Doug Wilson, who loves the classical disciplines of rhetoric and logic, would understand this. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing leading many astray.
Nope. Nadia may be a heretic, but it does not excuse Doug using a slur. He accuses Nadia of reducing women to genitalia while he himself has a history of reducing women to sexual objects for their husband's pleasure. There's no excuse for the C word and there's no excuse for Doug's misogyny.
Actually no. He properly qualified everything using biblical categories. As he said, our job is to observe what is Godly, not what does or doesn't offend your Victorian grandmother.
Observe what is godly? Oh, then you would want to consider verses such as Matthew 5:11 and Ephesians 4:29, right? This has nothing to do with “your Victorian grandmother.” (Great straw man by the way). The fact that the word can’t even be said in this video is proof that we aren’t talking about “your Victorian grandmother.” As much as Doug Wilson wants to deny it, we all know that that word is crass, vulgar, and offensive in this culture, in the context in which he used it. Which is WHY he used it! The root of the problem is that our Lord’s commandment wasn’t “go out and shock the world with your ability to talk like them.” It was and is “be holy as I am holy.” So yes, in this instance, Doug Wilson (whom I respect) is operating more out of Judges 17:6 than out of 1 Peter 1:16 (Lev. 11:44) or any other text you can point to describing sanctified, godly behavior. It’s just poor hermeneutics leading to a defiled practice. Any attempt to justify it is simply that: self-justification.
Using pornographic words are a sin (outside of the privacy of your bedroom). We don't need to shock with sin; sin is not salt. Col 3:8 8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
totally disagree. If using overly sexual language outside of the bedroom is a sin, then chuck out the book of Ezekiel. This thread shows me that many christians who get uppity about language have not actually read the whole bible. you're speaking very confidently for someone who clearly didn't look up the references Doug brought. Check out Ezekiel 16 and 23. We must allow our morals to be shaped by scripture. Scripture is the culture breaking- word. There are slighly incorrect stances on certain things within our western christian culture. There is a place for brutal, explicit imagery/language. Not very often, but it is there. Ezekiel uses such strong language to emphasise his point about the horrrendous nature of Israel, especially when contrasted with the devoted husband of Yahweh.
@@LanceJRoberts It's not clear in that he doesn't give us a list. Wisdom must come into play. We shouldn't joke about such things yes. But there is a time to talk about the whorings of the nominal church, for example. Or that Israel whored after her lovers, or that our idolatry is like seeking after lovers, saying god isn't good enough. Perhaps a sermon on Ezekiel 16 may call the pastor to say "stop spreading your legs for things of this world!" God is Holy, "The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times". This is still true in Ezekiel!
@@lierox9 I don't have a problem using those kind of metaphors. The problems come when we cross a line into pornographic words. I realize it takes some wisdom to know which words are those in which context, but that's our job is seek wisdom and use it.
@@LanceJRoberts Yeah, I get you. I mean I can't think of any appropriate time to use the F word for example. But I think this is the only "pornographic" word? I mean the word in question in the video is about the female genitalia, but doesn't go much further than that. It's becoming more everyday here in the UK, and doesn't really have sexual connotations at all when used.
Though I have certainly enjoyed listening to a lot of the Doug Wilson content on RU-vid, I am very surprised by his justification of using profanity (obscenity) in a public forum. The fact that he did it purposefully makes it even worse. I understand he did it for shock value. I fully understood his explanation in the video for why he did it. But I keep coming back to Jesus and the Apostles. They are our New Testament ministry models. I can’t remember Paul using an obscenity to confront the temple prostitute system of his day. I don’t remember Jesus trying to shock the people of His day by using profanity. Don’t get me wrong: they both used shocking language to get the attention of their audience. But I can’t recall them using either an obscenity or profanity to get people’s attention. Isn’t the Christian church supposed to be different than the world? And, if using that obscenity is perfectly ok, why didn’t he just say the word on RU-vid, instead of saying “the C-Word”? I think that stunt was a horrible witness for the church and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Seems like a lot of justification going on in the comments. I'm surprising to see no pushback to the language. I'd say "but Paul said all his achievements were dung and also told the Judaizers to cut their penises off!" is a terrible and thoughtless argument. Firstly, the word Paul uses for dung would have been at home in a medical description in the 1st century as well as the context he uses. Secondly, Paul does not say, "cut your d*ck/c*ck off," which would have been profane, but he says, "I wish they would just cut themselves off," which says the same thing without being profane. The key is the profanity of the one word here. But altogether this is a moot point, since You Ain't The Apostle Paul. "But Elijah did it," well You Ain't The Prophet Elijah either. But you may say to me, "Paul says, imitate me as I imitate Christ," which is true, however "as I imitate Christ" is a key phrase there. Jesus used terms like "brood of vibers" and "whitewashed tombs" and pronounced "woe to you!" but he was never once crass or profane. There is a difference between coarse and rough language, which is used throughout the bible, and obscene language, which I can only think of being used a couple of times, always in the OT and entirely in quotes from sinfully angry people (i.e. David wanting to slay "all those who piss against the bricks" and the Assyrian General telling Hezekiah his people will "drink their own piss and eat their own dung." This was a sinful moment of unreasonable anger for David, and the other guy is an Assyrian general.).
There is never a righteous occasion for the type of language that Doug used in his article. The ends do not justify the means. This is worldly pragmatism rather than biblical conduct. It is wicked and ungodly reasoning that needs to be repented of.
IS there such thing as profane words? Is there a list somewhere? Certainly not biblical listed words. Isn't it better to say profane language is that which not fitting for the occasion?
+Peter C. Mills Jr. - I get it, but come down off the high horse. I read language in comments on "Christian" videos every day that would make your hair curl.. including God's Name taken in vain - by "Christians". I do NOT agree with it. What Doug wrote is a far cry from what I see in a HALF day on here in comments, and he was writing a Blog post.. one word will not condemn him. If he walked down the street addressing every woman that way, he'd have a problem.. and I even have been addressed that way in Comments by others because most don't know scripture and cuss at those of us with some knowledge of it all the time.
@@danielmann5427 Jesus said to keep your mouth free from guile. NO doubt you know the words.. Jesus doesn't accept playing ignorant. ONE word placed in a Blog post on such a topic will not condemn Doug..it's not the same thing as you're talking about.
@@TheMistysFavs - not sure what verse you are referring too as far keeping our mouth from guile? Doesn't sound familiar. In this case i am ignorant of such a verse. Please inform me. The bible particularly Genesis is filled with righteous deception or guile or cunningness. Doug rightly pointed out as such.
This is nonsense. Would you smack your sons hand if he used this word? How much worse is a when a pastor does it. Defecating on the rug gets attention, it doesn't mean it's a proper method of doing so. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, Wilson, you're no Ezekiel.
Usually youtube comments are crass and unhelpful, so hopefully my response is neither. Can you explain why you disagree with him on this? And which part?
Kyle Hessler it’s been a while so I don’t remember exactly. But based on the title; I am opposed to Christians speaking like the world merely to get attention. Like the “C” word? Come on man...
@@camthejock i see. Doug's point about using curse words in appropriate situation is correct. But you are saying that the c word is inappropriate no matter what?
Scary that a man that proposes to preach and uphold scripture totally subverts clear commands of scripture concerning speech. And justifies it away. He is rightly called the "Mark Driscoll of Idaho", as otherwhere referred to. Be careful with Douglas Wilson, even if he is a reformed pastor. You can't convince me a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God crassly lets words like c- and p- roll off his tongue in such a proud manner and spirit, not to mention a lot of other crass/inappropriate language in his other content. Douglas Wilson needs to repent. He's on a slippery slope. How any woman, or man for that matter, could even feel comfortable facing this man in person as their pastor is perplexing.
No sir! Absolutely not! Never mind that I know no atheists who use that word in reality, and that you used it flippantly and cheekily, but that you, a supposed "man of God", minister of peace would so blatantly reduce someone a woman down to her genitalia, and an extremely vulgar term. It does not matter that she chooses to identify as that, we are called to higher standards than this. This is not excusable. This is not worth bragging over.
Umm, it seems that you also missed his point. He was not saying it in a derogatory way. He used it to make a point on how feminism is doing just that: reducing a woman to her genitalia. This video was released before this, but WAP is a great example of this. Women call it inspiring but its just glorifying women as sex objects... which also seems counter to the entire mantra of feminism. So its not as if he's using it in that way, he's deliberately calculated using this word for shock value and as a wake up call. It's not as if he just goes around saying it thoughtlessly without regard. I'm praying for you. Take care.
@@grantdarnell4318 Yet Paul made a point to say "not even unbelievers do that" when a man was sleeping with his father's wife. You are absolutely right, he used this for shock value, but very inappropriately. Sometimes when I hurt myself, or I'm upset, or even angry, I will use a cuss word, and it definitely has a place to make a point. But to reduce someone to the most derogatory term of their genitalia, it is disgusting. It is not Christlike. I have heard unbelievers get upset when (foreign) friends use that word. To make a point would be using the phrase "I'm fucking angry about this." It is getting the point across that what has happened deserves a special place of anger. But using this same reasoning, what would it then be ok for me to call Doug a dick based on this? Because I really struggle to not do that, but I understand that there is more to his humanity than that- there is an imago dei. This "cussing"is used to further dehumanize the very people he is angry with. I can disagree with what these women did and still choose to see them fully as created beings. The article itself sets a straw-man argument against the very real scars that purity culture have left with Christians- and the damage it has inflicted on the faith. What Nadia Bolz-Weber did was a complete affront to the gospel, and undercuts the beauty of purity laid out through Leviticus, but Doug's answer was not one that brings healing. What do you think an unbeliever would think about Christians, the Gospel, and the church if they read this article he is referring to?
@@carawadley317 I see your point, but also your point is predicated on the fact that he was using it as a slur, but actually in the article he used it by saying that that’s what they were saying they were, which undercuts the whole feminists narrative and they need to take a closer look at exactly what it is that they are trying to get across. Perhaps he should not have used the word, but he wasn’t trying to degrade women by using that word. He was simply calling out the people whose ideology brings them to glorify being promiscuous and leads them to calling themselves that word.
Nope. Answers not congealing for me. Sometimes even though I can I don’t because the outcome isn’t worth the missed message. Bible says not to use this language so let’s point out where the Bible does use it? Feels like woman shouldn’t be in authority but let’s look at where they were in scripture. The random outlier situation doesn’t overrule the general mandate. Did the shock value bring the attention and insight into the bigger meaning. I’d say with a strong majority no. From my anecdotal circle of the world where your name is brought up. I end up having to defend the word much more than the content. I’m personally unfazed and don’t chunk the watermelon because a fly landed on it.
ephesians 4:29 you must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth..... Using filthy language is not Godly no matter how you put it. That is being of the world not of God.
Hi Sandina -- thanks for interacting. I think the point of this video is that we have re-defined "wholesome" as "nice", but by doing so have lost the way the Apostles themselves talked *when the gospel was at stake.* For example, Paul uses the rude Greek word for poop in Philippians 3:8 "...and do count them but dung". It's often been suggested that English has a different four-letter word that would be a more accurate translation than dung. There are more examples I can give too if you're interested.This doesn't mean we go around saying such things casually (Pastor Wilson certainly doesn't), but it DOES mean there's a proper context.
@@CanonPress you're comparing the c word to the word dung/poop? The word unwholesome and the word nice are not the same thing. I can say you're ugly. (I don't think you are at all, but just as an example) That's not nice but it's still wholesome. No matter what context you put it in there is no excuse for a pastor using that kind of language. That makes him of this world, not of God. I can't believe we've even gotten to the point that this is an arguable matter. That scripture still stands as it did when it was written. God doesn't need anyone to use foul language to defend his gospel. Kind of reminds me of Steven Anderson, who is not a man of God at all.
@@sandina2cents779 I think you missed the point, a more accurate translation of the Greek word for dung would be the s-word. So the Apostle Paul used what be considered an expletive. I think that Doug made a mistake writing that word, but the Bible does contain surprisingly strong language, as Doug points out. There may be a Scriptural case for using strong language as Christians, as our understanding of "bad words" is not the same as those living in Bible times. However, it's a slippery slope in a similar vein that culminates with the likes of Nadia Bolz-Weber.
Zachary Hecita he didn’t say dung, he said the c-word. That’s filth and unbiblical. Don’t tell me you think the c-word is not inappropriate for a pastor to say no matter what the context. If you do then you are as lost as he is, and that’s sad. I didn’t miss the point. Filth is filth. And Paul could have also said “dung”.
@@sandina2cents779 Your comment made me chuckle. We actually are in agreement. I thought it inappropriate for Doug to use that word, but I think you misunderstood my point. I don't like bad language any more than you do, as much as I don't like alcohol. However, there is a Biblical precedent for expletives, just like the Bible never condemns drinking itself. To be objective is to acknowledge there is a case for, and, yes, a case against cursing. Remember there is righteous anger and righteous jealousy, so God is pretty nuanced on these things. There may very well be such a thing as righteous cursing. My point was that rationalizing strong language would produce more people like the woman Doug warns us about not less.
Please, oh, please, Mr. Wilson, won't you give us a law and a targum for potty words? How about you stop perverting the grace of God into sensuality. Can we all remember that God's men do not wage war as the world does? "Nadia Bolz-Weber did something obscene, so I said something obscene to bring attention to her obscenity," is not a biblical line of reasoning. Douglas Wilson is not the apostle Paul, and he is doing a really bad job at imitating him.
