Truth Unites - Should Christians Use Profanity? (Gavin Ortlund & Joe Rigney)

Episode Date: September 1, 2025

Gavin Ortlund and Joe Rigney discuss whether Christians should use profanity.To dig deeper into these issues, see the prior correspondence between Denny Burk and Doug Wilson:https://www.dennyburk.com/the-serrate...https://dougwils.com/books-and-cultur...Truth Unites (https://truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites, Visiting Professor of Historical Theology at Phoenix Seminary, and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville.SUPPORT:Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunitesFOLLOW:Website: https://truthunites.org/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/truth.unites/X: https://x.com/gavinortlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/

We use those terms in a way that is necessary to expose evil, not in a way that is just thrown in and just comes across as kind of crude and weird. Some of these examples I read and I just think, why? What's yielded by an attempt at kind of careful hermeneutics is something very different from using the worst possible words the English language has to describe women. Speaking of the size of women's breasts, I'm not seeing any greater insight into evil by him referencing the size of that body part. The description of Doug uses the phrase,

small breasted bitties, that's the one. That was a part of a caricature. And so I'd lump that into the same category of it's the pencil neck or it's your philactories are too long and you're trumpeting your things. And it's an exaggerated feature in order. It's the same thing that a caricatures does in order to expose their foibles. It's not about the body part in particular. It's the body part's about a larger picture of this type of person and the rebuke being issued,

say, to feminism in that particular instance. Hey, everyone. Welcome or welcome back to Truth Unites. I am here with Joe Rigney, who is, I want to make sure I get your bio right here, an associate pastor at Christchurch in Moscow, Idaho, a fellow of theology at New St. Andrews College, author of many books. And the goal of this video is to work through some of our differences in the realm of speech and think about what does godly speech look like, which is a very important and relevant topic to the world today. So I'll share a little bit about the background that leads us here, and then I'll give you the chance to you. Joe to weigh in on this as well. I had put out of video critiquing what I see is the normalization of ungodly speech among professing Christians today. And one of the examples I used was the speech of Doug Wilson, with whom you have institutional ties. And then you tagged me on X, posting the video and giving some pushback. And then we had some messages together, and you offered to talk about it. And I thought, that seems better than talking on X. I mean, so I basically have to be, I basically have as low of you as possible about, you know,

productive disagreements happening over X. So I really think it's better to steer clear from there and just talk in person. So I thought, hey, this could be a good opportunity. We know each other. We've talked before. I would say we're acquaintances. I would say we have a positive relationship and we've been able to communicate. And so I thought this would be a good chance just to talk this issue through and work

through some of our different perspectives. Is that a fair summary of the background? Anything you want to say here at the beginning before we dive in? No, yeah, I think that that's, I think the thing that, so I watched your original video, and obviously you kind of launched out, you know, into it by using examples from Doug. And then some of the arguments I thought were really good. And I think we'll find lots of agreement there. And then there was a couple of places where I just thought that you qualified it, but you said it strong and then you qualified it.

And so then it's, that's where I think that the interesting questions come. And it has to do with Herman. which is where not just with you, but other folks who kind of chimed in and were interacting with it, it really did be kind of a kind of hermeneutical question about how we read the Bible, how we try to follow biblical examples and things like that. So I think that's actually where my interest is is kind of in that space too. So yeah, this should be great. Great. Sounds like we have similar interest in terms of where we can go here, because I think that's a key, the key issue is just getting into the harmonetics of what does it look like to interpret and then apply these biblical examples?

maybe a good thing to start with would be areas of agreement. We'll go for about an hour here to set viewers' expectations, so we want to dive right in. So quickly, let's touch on, I'll share two concerns I have that I suspect and hope you do agree with. I think you will, at least in principle. And we can start there, and then we'll start to work outwards toward disagreements. So two things I'm seeing. One is a whole generation of young men, especially online, getting catechized, in flippant profane speech, including even among very popular Christian influencers.

You know, I'm talking about just dropping the F-bomb in a very casual manner, this kind of thing. And that is, I'm concerned about a desensitizing to that. Now, one thing I think also I want to say, and I suspect you'll agree with this as well, that I also see a danger of, I'm going to use the word aloofness, a kind of, well, it could be cowardice. It could be just unawareness. It could be just, for whatever reason, a hesitancy to lean into the cultural moment, be bold. I got choked up yesterday, and I was teaching a course, and we were talking about the spiritual needs of the world right now,

and I got choked up just thinking about the amount of pain that is out there and the tremendous need that is out there for boldness in our communication of the gospel. And I think that means even with each other, just a willingness to talk and lean in and work through things. my general rule is I'm always happy to talk if someone is of good faith and there can be a productive dialogue as I think we'll have here I think you know we should we got to be willing to lean in and talk about things so those are two two two things and my right to suspect we'll have a lot of agreement on some of those issues and then we can kind of work outward from there yeah I think I think when it comes to casual the casual coarsening of speech casual use of obscenities vulgarities profanities. I agree that that's a problem. And I think it's a problem culture-wide. This is a larger

part of kind of the cultural degeneration absence of standards or replacing of standards. So I do think that's an issue widely. And so the casual use, I think, is an issue. And so yeah, we agree there. And then I think when it comes, I think there is a question, I at least agree that the issue of what does boldness look like in a degenerating society, post-Christian, post-Christiandom, what does it look like to be bold? And how, and especially when you mentioned this in your video, and I think it is a relevant point, in a contextless communicative environment, meaning it's hard to target your speech at one person because it's just going to go everywhere. If it's public speech, it's going to be in the internet, it's going to get clipped, it's going to get put in places where maybe you didn't really intend for it to go. That wasn't your target. But now it's going to be there. Does that mean, don't ever say anything? How do you,

navigate those? I think those are real questions. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah, the internet adds a whole level of complexity for us. That's very tricky. Okay, well, let's start working through maybe where we differ and some of the hermeneutical issues here. So you're, let me, I want to make sure I get your post right. And what I'll do is, let me just read this. So what you said is, I'm always amazed at the evangelicals like Gavin Ortland here, who overtly advocate for selective imitation of the character and speech of Christ, the prophets and the apostles, imitate Christ's gentleness, but not his serrated edge, imitate Ezekiel's zeal, but not his rhetoric. It strikes me as a subtle attempt to be holier than God.

So that is a straw man. I never said that. I didn't use the word selective or reference anything about some parts rather than others. What I talked about was humility in the application, which I regard as a matter of biblical hermeneutics, which I think

we can get into here. I went through and re-listen to that section. So my words, basically, I said, we're not Jesus or Paul. We're not Elijah or Ezekiel. And then I said, that does not mean that they're never a model for us, or that we can't learn from that. But there is a need for humility in the, basically the hermeneutics of this.

And I gave the example. So there's differences, right? Differences of calling, differences of context. So I gave the example of Isaiah's going around without clothing. Other examples, or that's Isaiah. Other examples would be Josea, marrying a prostitute, Ezekiel eating baked bread over cow dung in Ezekiel four, Jeremiah wearing a yoke around his neck. There's all these kinds of examples where I just think it's true hermeneutically that we don't.

So in other words, I'm saying we want to obey the full range of biblical models. I'm not advocating for parts of it or just do the nice parts. I'm saying there's complexity here hermeneutically because of context, because of calling, because of a few other things I'll put on the table as well. But, you know, so like to give an example, one example would be Christ overturning the money tables in the temple. Suppose someone were to go to their church and start turning over tables out of maybe even, let's say, for the sake of argument, a righteous indignation over sin in the church. My response to that wouldn't be, oh, you're, you know, we need to be selective. Don't do what Jesus did there, do what Jesus did over here.

Rather, what I'm saying is it's actually a relevant fact that we're not Jesus. We don't actually live in the literal temple. There's no sheep and doves and money tables and the pews and tables that we have are not the same as the money-changing tables. In other words, there's all these sort of hermeneutical issues that come up of differences of context. And we've got to work hard to figure out what does it look like? to imitate what we should follow of the righteous indignation of Christ in that passage. So I guess before we get into the issue of speech, I'm just clarifying what I argued and saying, I think this is a matter of what it looks like to obey the full example, not, you know,

as you characterized it, overtly advocating for selective imitation. Okay. Yeah, and I think it was the combination of the—so you did qualify. I went back and watched it too. but it was the there are certain things that should never be said because uh you know and use doug's example um for a minister to use this kind of sexually graphic or something like that um is scandalous and that's where so it was the combination of that plus the later you're not ezekiel that made me connect the dots because it seems to me that ezekiel's use of language um would be

scandalous right so the the ezekiel passage is one that gets brought up a lot in the discussions, but a sexually graphic description, kind of belabored, actually. When you read Ezekiel 23, you're just like, he continues to just hammer this hoarder image. And so should we, can we imitate something like that? And so even with the example of Christ in the, in the turning over the tables, the particular, like if someone actually physically went and turned over tables, yeah, we could say, hey, this isn't the temple, there's no court of the Gentiles, this isn't how, like, there's particularizations there. But what would, what would be the equivalent in the modern context, and is that imitable? So you're saying, yes, it would be. And then that's where some of the

examples like that you led with in your video of, you know, David French's summary of what Doug is done, I would say, well, that's, that's what those are. Those are examples of intentional imitation. And I think to the selectivity point, maybe one of the questions would be, do you feel the same, the need for humility? So basically, you're waving a warning flag. If you're going to try to be like Jesus Paul, Ezekiel Elijah, when it comes to their serrated edge, when it comes to prophetic speech, warning flag, you're not them, humility. Do you feel a similar need to issue the warning for, hey, be gentle like Christ, but hey, remember, you're not him. Right? In other words, is there, do you feel any, that would be part of the selectivity is whenever it comes to imitating certain characteristics, say gentleness, then just go, no worries that you're going to get that wrong.

but all of a sudden when it comes to the use of prophetic rebuke, we have to wall it off and keep it safely tucked away for every once in a blue moon type situation. Yeah, that's a good question. So first, before I answered that, just you referenced David French's summary. I just want to clarify, it wasn't David French's summary. It was a different one, which is fine.

I just always want to honor someone who's not here, they don't get dragged into things. My answer is yes. I think humility applies across the board. So I am absolutely not advocating for any sort of selective approach, this rather than that. I just think that by their very nature, some things are going to have certain temptations and dangers. There can be a temptation of a false kind of compassion, for example. I know you think about these things.

And we call it like a sin of empathy or something. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're familiar with this topic. And we'll have disagreements about that as well. But categorically, I agree that that is a possible danger to misconstrue the nature. of compassion. I think what is, but Christ, I mean, Christ is the good model of that. And so I'm worried about that in a very different way. What I am seeing, the honest, like if I just bear my heart before you here, the honest pastoral concern is, I'm seeing a lot of young men appeal to the

harsher aspects of the scriptural witness. And they are going in directions that I think actually aren't consistent with that. They're going in directions that I regard as falling into the territory of Ephesians 5-4 and Colossians 3-8, what Paul speaks of as shameful speech. And so I think the thing maybe to talk through here is basically what is biblical harshness and what is consistent with that? Because what I would say is that the speech I raised concerns about in my video is not an application of the prophetic edge or biblical satire or biblical harshness. So in other words,

what's yielded by an attempt at kind of careful hermeneutics is something very different from speaking of the size of women's breasts using the worst possible words the English language has to describe women. Those are not, I would say that's not Ezekiel 23. That's not Jesus. That's not Paul. That's not, you know, in scripture we have the prophets of Bail being mocked in 1 Kings 18. We have Paul saying that they would go the whole way and amasculate themselves. We have graphic imagery in Ezekiel 2320. We have the seven woes. Part of in my video, what I'm trying to do is show some of the other attendant elements with that. So like the grief that Christ has at the end of Matthew 23, the sense of sobriety and gravity and sadness and

heaviness of the topic. With regard to Ezekiel 23 specifically, I guess what I would distinguish is between prophetic sharpness designed to expose sin versus vulgarity that is just not necessary. So the imagery of Ezekiel 23 is there to unmask how truly horrendous the people of God have become. I mean, at this time in history, they've fallen into those very same practices of child sacrifice that caused the Canaanites to be vomited out of the land. and their hard-hearted covenant breakers to whom God sends these prophets to try to awaken them, try to shock them into seeing the nature of the sin. And I would make a distinction between that and language that is targeting the size of body parts or something like that that is just not necessary.

It's not actually unmasking any sin. It's just vulgar. And the last thing I'll say, and then I'll let you interact with this, is the concern is it's one thing if that speech happens and then is acknowledged to be wrong. Because I have made mistakes, not necessarily like, you know, language like this, but other ways where I have to come back and say, you know what? That is not a good example. I need to correct myself. That was not helpful. When that happens, those who are under the chain of influence receive that. But when it's defended and when it's still up in print, what happens is others follow in the footsteps and see that as

defensible. And they say, okay, well, if he did it and he's defending it, then it's okay. And therefore, the prophetic edge gets applied to other things. So I guess the, the hermeneutical issue here is, I don't think there's consistency in the use of very graphic language. Yeah, good. So taking both of those, so one of them would be in the category, I think, of caricature. In other words, the particular example that you mentioned of describing, you said women's body parts, it was one phrase and a string of phrases describing a particular kind of woman, feminist, there was a string of other things that was a caricature in the same way that if someone was describing trying to draw a caricature of a man and described him as a

pencil neck, right? So, and you're not, you don't have any particular person in mind, but you have type of person in mind. We use caricatures to exaggerate real features in order to paint the picture and then in the use of, say, satire to rebuke it. It's the sort of thing that I think Jesus is doing in, you know, you blow the trumpet in the marketplace, you wear your philacteries long. So the kind of exaggerate, you strain out gnats, you swallow camels. these are caricature hyperbolic speech designed to paint a picture of the Pharisees that's not flattering and is to rebuke in that case their hypocrisy and so that's so that's the broad category that if you're talking about the genus that we're talking about of prophetic speech of rebuking speech it would be

the caricature and then the question then would be is it legitimate to use other so can you caricature women right and if you did how would you do so and so those would be that would be the the category that that that one particular or those kind in particular would fall under is these are caricatures that if if you were writing a novel or if you were making a movie there would be other ways that you would exaggerate certain features of people in order to draw attention to their follies their sins and so forth for the sake of rebuke which i think maybe that's a macro category is that the use of satire in general, I think, is a form of rebuke. Like, I think that's, so if some people were asking is, you know, Jesus, all of the examples that Christ gives or the New

Testament gives for how we should speak are, you know, be gentle, have courtesy, et cetera, which those are there. So where does he ever say be satirical? And I say, well, he said, we have repeated commands to rebuke, sometimes rebuk sharply. And so then in the same way that when I'm told be gentle, And I go, okay, I want to be gentle and I want to learn what does gentleness, biblical gentleness look like. I go to Christ. I look at something like the woman at the well. I look at something like, you know, caring for the weak and the poor. And I say, okay, that's biblical gentleness.

So in order to obey that command, I look at that biblical example. Similarly, when I'm told in the Bible, rebuke error, rebuke sin, sometimes sharply. And I go, okay, where am I going to learn how to rebuke? Where do I get models for what faithful rebuke looks like? like, well, then I'm going to look at Paul and I'm going to look at Christ. I'm going to look at the prophets. And I'm going to say, that's what they're doing regularly is rebuking. And here's some of the forms that that rebuke takes, caricature being one of them. And then the other one being with the Ezekiel example, here's how I, this is how I've made sense of the passage.

And then think about an application is Paul is, or Elijah is engaged in the act of translation. So here's this gross evil, this idolatry that Israel's committing. And it's unrecognized for the horror that it is. And so in order to reveal or expose the evil, Ezekiel uses the vulgar or obscene language, right? You spread your legs before your paramours. You're lusting after them. like they have the issue of donkeys and and so forth.

Their members are like the members of horses. He uses very graphic what in normal speech would be vulgarities and obscenities. Like if you were just having a casual conversation and you dropped that kind of language in, I think it would be inappropriate. But given the evil that he's facing, he reaches for the graphic vulgarities and obscenities in order to reveal the evil that's really there. So it's a translation. I'm going to translate this evil into speech to shock you, arrest your attention,

you know, wake up so that you'll repent so that others will be warned away from it and so forth. And so that's what I think's going on in the Bible. So when Pastor Wilson, in the particular example of the word that everybody, the example that gets brought out the most is when he used a. very obscene term for female anatomy because Nadia Bowles-Weber, a Lutheran pastor, had melted down purity rings, shaped them into the female sexual organ, made a trophy, which she presented to Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon. So that was the thing that they did as a reward for all of her, the good things that she'd done for women, like promoter board.

And so this, here's a, here's a sexually explicit image. And then evangelicals, like I think it was, I don't remember which evangelical publication was commenting on this and treating it with kind of furrowed brow like, oh, this is an interesting conversation that we should have about purity culture and treating it in this very benign sort of way. What Doug did was translate what they did into English. Right. Here, this, we're going to celebrate women. We're going to celebrate the cause of women. We're going to celebrate feminism by melting down purity rings into this statue and awarding it to this icon. And so he said, what they are saying is, and then use the graphic term. So in that sense, it's a similar act of translation from, because it, because it's going unrecognized. Evangelicals are taking it with more seriousness or with less gravity, actually, than it does. deserves. And so the deliberate intentional, it wasn't careless, it's not casual speech, the deliberate use of the obscenity, I'm using those interchangeably somewhat. Absinities

are sexually explicit. Vulgarities would be crude or rude, so potty humor would be examples of vulgarities. The sexual ones would be obscenities. The targeted use of that was an act of translation to reveal the great evil, the great wickedness that's being celebrated and yawned at by evangelical. So that was the, and that was a form of rebuke of both, evangelical apathy as well as the feminist rebellion. So that's, that would be, that's the justification for it. And I think, I can imagine someone going, well, I could never do that. I understand the argument, but I still don't think it was a wise use of speech. I have a category for that. The question was more of, in principle, is that sort of thing allowed? Like the translation of high,

I handed evil into graphic speech for the sake of rebuke. Can we do that? Can we imitate that? And my argument is, yes, we can. Right. Yeah. And I think, so I understand what you're saying. First of all, not all evangelicals are just laid back about this.

I mean, I think that exists. And some would need to be shocked out of that. I think there's a lot also, like myself, who would say, yeah, this is horrible. But we also need to respond to it in the right way. What I would differ, and what I'm saying is the distinction between prophetic sharpness and what crosses the line into vulgarity is Ezekiel's graphic imagery is there to expose sin, whereas many of the examples that I put on the screen in my video, they're not enhancing any exposure of sin. To talk about the size of women's breasts doesn't add anything to what you're saying. It's just demeaning. but it wasn't but to say it was just a but like it was a a phrase taken out of context of an entire article

and that was a phrase taken out of a paragraph that was painting a picture of a certain kind of person why is it necessary to reference the size of that body part to sit to describe that kind of person i mean i read the i read the whole article again this morning to make sure i'm not missing any context i still don't think that particular description is necessary to do have the same effect Ezekiel's imagery is necessary to, right? Because he's using that to expose the evil. I'm not seeing any greater insight into evil by him referencing the size of that body part. Yeah, but so, so maybe I confused by conflating, but or by, I'm trying to distinguish the description of, Doug use the phrase, small breasted bitties. That's the one that I think you're thinking of. That was a part of a

caricature. And so I'd lump that into the same category of the, it's the pencil neck or it's, your philactories are too long and you're trumpeting your things and it's an exaggerated feature in order it's the same thing that a caricatures does in a um like the cartoonist the political cartoonist who draw caricatures of real people in order to expose their foibles so it wasn't about the body like it's not about the body part in particular it's the body parts about a larger picture of this type of person um and the rebuke being issued say to feminism in that in that particular instance the ezekiel where to if i could just ask though because i think the biblical caricatures you reference,

there's the pencil neck, you reference that, and then you reference the philactories. Well, those are very different. Those are not sexual insults. Those are not targeting or demeaning personally to people's bodies. So I'm not seeing a biblical parallel for a pencil neck would be,

wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be demeaning? Are you thinking about? No, I'm saying, I'm saying that kind of phrase. If Doug had used that kind of phrase, pencil neck or limp of wrist,

something like that. in order to paint a picture of a certain type of male sin. That wouldn't be as severe because it wouldn't be targeting a sexual body part of women, but it still would be different. What I'm observing is there's a difference between the biblical imagery, which is there specifically to unmask evil. And this completely unnecessary adjective, which even read in context, does not give any great—

It's not like we've got 80% clarity of what he's talking about, but then he threw in the reference to that body part and cranked it up to 90% clarity. It's not helping us understand evil. It's just demeaning to women's bodies. And to me, it's just not a good application of the text. Yeah. And it strikes me as again, it's the whole package of the imagery. So it's this kind of glasses, that kind of haircut.

It's in that same bucket of description. as a way of painting a type that's being exposed and revealed. So that's the target. And I even would say, so the question would be, are caricatures involving body parts permissible? Yeah. I think that's too broad a category. I mean, it depends, I would say,

but I'm addressing this example. And are you open to the fact that the targeting of female body parts crosses into different territory than something like a pencil neck or a limp wrist or something like that? Well, I mean, again, like, so it would be, if the combination would be caricatures are valid

and sexually graphic things are used to describe high-handed evil. And that's, you mentioned the, I wish they'd go the whole way and castrate themselves. As a way of drawing attention to a particular, in that case, a heresy, that Paul is drawing your attention

to a particular part of the male anatomy in order to rebuke a particular sin that was in view. Yeah. So there we've got. Okay, so we're combining different things. I still would say we don't have any biblical grounding whatsoever for use of speech that is personally demeaning to individuals about the size of their body parts. That is just nowhere in scripture. But it's not, but like, it's not, but whenever, it wasn't personally demeaning to any particular, when, when Jesus mocked the Pharisees for an exaggerated and painted a picture of them, caricatured them. It's not about any, he wasn't looking at Jim and saying, and just describing Jim for the people. Instead, he's saying there's a class of people, there's this group of people that this type,

that's what caricatures do. I mean, in some ways, like, C.S. Lewis does something similar. I mean, this is what great divorce is, those people are familiar in the great divorce. The damned spirits are familiar, but they're exaggerations of familiar. And he draws the exaggeration in order to draw out real features of reality, but sort of put them under a microscope so that you get the type, this type of person. And I think that's what Doug was doing in that particular example. The difference I'm seeing is that in the one case, the imagery is designed specifically to unmask evil. That's true for the great divorce and for Lewis's words and for Ezekiel 23.

No greater unmasking is occurring. by targeting the specific size of body parts. And we don't have any biblical grounding for that specific kind of sexualized insult. And so I would say there's a leap being made hermeneutically from the examples to this current practice being defended. We don't find the prophets going around talking about the size of other people's bodily organs, there it is spoken in a way, for example, Ezekiel 23 is also an allegory. And so there's the imagery of Hortem. And there the imagery is serving the specific holy and godly purpose of unmasking evil to shock people

into seeing they have profaned what is sacred. I think actually the language I'm objecting to has the opposite effect of it kind of reduces our sense of the sacred by introducing into our vocabulary terms that I guess just the blunt way to put it is, I think it's just disrespectful to women. I think it doesn't, it doesn't honor, there is absolutely no need to go to that level to make the spiritual point. No further evil has been unmasked by telling us the size of these body parts. That's just a completely different kind of rhetoric. So I'm very concerned about this. I mean, I think it is, again, it opens the door when it is defended for others.

And the reason I'm concerned is what I see following in the wake of other people saying, okay, so now this is okay over here, and this is okay. And it's sometimes the same thing or sometimes slightly amplified, but in any case, I think as I read the Bible, I'm seeing, you know, Mark Twain's whole thing of, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that concern me as the part I do understand. I think a valid hermeneutical principle is emphasize what is emphasized in the text. So in our pastoral application, in our Christian life, emphasize what is really emphasized in scripture.

And when I read the scripture, I think something that's very clearly emphasized is the need for totally above board speech in terms of anything that would cross the boundary into vulgarity. I mentioned Ephesians 5-4, Colossians 3-8. And I so in other words, if, in fact, just one more sentence, then you can jump in. If, in fact, I'm right that there's a movement happening from Ezekiel 23 to this contemporary practice in the specific ways I've outlined, then it's, I think, right for us to feel very careful about this for the impact that it has upon others in light of the biblical emphasis on the importance of our speech and how it honors people made in God's image. Go ahead. Do you think the Bible uses vulgarities? Oh, yeah. That's what I was saying. It does so to unmask evil. Okay, so then it is legitimate to use vulgarities.

So maybe I'll put it this way. You're objecting to this particular one, the description of body parts, that particular application, not to the principle of obscenities and vulgarities are usable by, you know, wise, careful people, not half hazard, not casual, but intentional uses of those is legitimate. Yes. Now, I also said in my video, so I don't want to be sneaky here. I want to be consistent and kind of acknowledge what I said in my video, which is I think there are some terms that really we should never use. And the reason for that would be I can't imagine any scenario in which it would have an edifying effect. So even there, I'm not functioning with these absolute timeless principles. Basically, with our speech, we want to do what will promote good and what will restrain evil.

and that is context specific to an extent. But, you know, some of these arguments could be used. So a question I would have is, I mean, what would you say to the person who does drop the F-bomb? And he cusses someone out. And he says, look, the Bible uses extremely harsh. You know, he can do the same additive combining work that you did with these different principles. And then he can use this to justify that speech. I think because what I would say to him is that isn't.

good hermeneutics, but it seems that he can make similar moves. So I guess the question would be, do you think Christians or even pastors can use the F-bomb in any circumstance? Yeah, I think there could be circumstances where it would be appropriate. What would that look like for you? I think it would be, again, in situations of high-handed evil, that's unrecognized. So, I mean, I don't love Tony Campolo. I think he was wrong on a whole host of issues, but I got the point that he would make regularly where he would use, I think it was the S word, usually, where he would say, he would try to say, there's millions dying of starvation and you don't give and he'd use the S word because you're more concerned about the fact that I just use the S word. So some of the ways that that could be, I think, legitimately used would be to target a lack of proportion, which is, again, I think another thing that Pastor Wilson sought to do is the reason to use the course word, this is, Chester's, The Bretonian point that Chester has made was nine times out of ten, the course word condemns the evil, the refined word excuses it.

So the use of the course word is meant to arrest the politeness that we're pretending to have. And so I could imagine someone saying, here's something that's going unrecognized, use the expletive to arrest the attention, and then point at the thing. So I could imagine. I think that would mean, well, we've done something similar in an ad where we use Johnny Cash's middle finger. favorite finger brief glance which would i think be the the the visual equivalent of that um because but it was at what what was the thing that we needed to give johnny cash's favorite finger to um the rank idolatry and degeneracy of our day so it was that's that's the sort of thing as a way of pushing back against the accommodationist tendencies of modern evangelicals yeah that okay

So that, I mean, I guess the difference, maybe where we differ is what you're describing in terms of harsh language so as to have this kind of sobering effect, to unmask evil, to stir up conscience. Yeah, rest attention, awaken a dead conscience perhaps. I think that many, the specific examples I targeted in my video, as well as a lot of what I'm seeing, it doesn't have that actual effect. it actually just cheapens our dialogue. And it reduces us to the standards of the world because it doesn't have these attendant elements that I described in scripture where there is, for example, a sense of sobriety

and grief about things. And it also just goes further, especially in a sort of sexual way, which is it just comes across as kind of weird and kind of just not helpful, not edifying in a way. It's not actually making us take evil really seriously. So I think in the effect, is when we go beyond what is modeled in scripture,

I think the effect needs to be taken into account. Is this actually having the effect we desire to have? Go ahead. Yeah, I think probably, though, say, so imagine for a second that Ezekiel 23 is not in the Bible, but God still thinks it's okay. So it could be, but it's not. If someone did in Ezekiel 23,

I think that the sensibility you're describing would have the same reaction. that wasn't edifying it didn't have that effect um so there's a way and this is i think again that hermeneutical point where where um it's like the way of the way i've the parallel has been you know there's certain um you know uh evangelical exegetes who will say we were stuck with apostolic conclusions of how to read the old testament so if paul says that hagar and sarah are two covenants well i guess that we're stuck with that because paul said so but we couldn't go imitate apostolic exegesis because he's an apostle. And that's how this sort of thing is often,

it's like, well, we're stuck with Ezekiel 23. It's in there. But if anybody tried to do an Ezekiel 23, which I think is what Doug did to Nadia Bulls-Weber and Modern Reformation when they were, like that was that was what that was. I don't think that they felt it was that. They retreated to, this was vulgar speech and defended their action. So it didn't have the effect on them.

but they're not the only target in the same way that I don't know that Ezekiel's language may not have had any effect whatsoever on the shepherds of Israel who are leading Israel into idolatry. They may have doubled down on their idolatry. That's part of his mission is to, you know, harden that heart. But there may have been other Israelites who saw Ezekiel, who heard Ezekiel's message, saw it, made the connection, saw the translation, and all of a sudden we're like, whoa. And so, and I think that there's plenty of people I could point to. who have had a similar reaction to many of Doug's skewerings, that it did arrest the attention and restore a sense of proportion. Because I think a lot of times that's what satire does is when our,

so I mean, like even as a, here's a, I don't know, this is maybe going somewhere we don't want to go. But like last week, Russell Moore said that our arguments are insidious, Santanic, and of the spirit of the Antichrist, right? So that we have a non-Christian view of God based on this CNN interview that went around. That seems to me like a pre like so he's trying to rebuke. He's trying to warn. And it seems to be- But notice that he didn't insult any of the size of any of your body parts, for example.

Right. And so, but the, but think about the proportionality here. So you read a phrase in a longer description attempting to paint a caricature of a certain kind of feminist. and it really sounds like he's unnerved you. No, no, no, it didn't even have any effect upon me. Well, I mean, you're saying this isn't helpful. It was enough to go, we should never use these words.

I can't imagine it's a scandal. That was the language you used. I would say it's scandalous to the gospel, and it's not just that one example. It's the speech because it is so different. I would disagree that Ezekiel's language today would be received the same way as Doug Wilson's. So let me give an example.

When I was in college, I remember the college pastor at our church coming in and giving a scathing rebuke, had all the kinds of appropriately edifying ingredients that you're talking about, of just putting us all, you know, and I remember the effect it had. It was profoundly edifying because it was targeting a real evil, and it was appropriate. It was fitting. What I'm saying is that was more effective, not less. because he did not demean anyone personally or in a sexualized way. It did not have any reference to anyone's...

I don't even want to say all the words that have come up here that I targeted. And it would have been cheapened and reduced in its edifying effect had it gone into that territory. So I think we should have a place for very blunt rebuke that is in the Bible. But I just think, you know, do what the Bible does. We use those terms to really, in a way that is necessary to expose evil, not in a way that is just thrown in and just comes across as kind of crude and

weird and, you know, some of these examples I read and I just think, why? Why do that? It is, it is not adding anything to the rhetorical force to, he could have made the same point without targeting the size of anyone's body parts. It was just not necessary to go there. And it's not, I don't see that as a biblical precedent. I have, having any biblical precedent so yeah well and and maybe that some of this is i think part of the difference is there there i hear a little bit of a paint i don't want a caricature too much or but like a paint by numbers right i need to be able to draw so if so caricatures are in bounds and then that's a part of a caricature is that that makes sense as opposed to i need to be able to find a biblical

a analogous biblical example as opposed to doing what i was doing what i was doing, which is, hey, here's a biblical example of satire. Here's a biblical example of satire. Put them together. You get something like that as a way of drawing that caricature. I wouldn't just go ahead. Finish off then. Yeah. So that's so like so and I think and I think that's part of the issue is is like and and maybe some of the other issues it wasn't exposing evil. It's like well, the feminism that was being targeted is the evil. And maybe I don't know, I assume we agree that that's an evil that needs to be revealed and exposed. And it landed on you.

You felt like it didn't accomplish that. It was a distraction from it. And I go, it didn't distract me from, like in other words, I saw the intent of is painting a picture of this type of person that represents this ideology. And a similar way, maybe another example would be of this kind of thing. I wrote an article against feminism a couple years ago. and the publication that I published with put an image at the header of Perseus holding up the head of Medusa. So this was their choice. So it was a, it's a famous statue in Italy of Perseus having cut off the head of Medusa.

And they used that. And it became a big, that became the focal point because some people, some Christian women wanted to identify and say that you're attacking women. and I was going, they weren't, Medusa's not a woman. She's a woman. She's a feminine, female monster. But that's actually a pretty good image for feminism. But so the iconography had the effect that, that we wanted it to have. But it didn't mean that the people who were afflicted by that ideology didn't receive it that way, right? It wasn't helpful to them.

And I think other people said, oh, you're attacking women. but the image was still valuable as a representation of that ideology, which I think is a similar thing. And it's a cumulative. It wasn't just a target one thing. It was, here's a whole picture, certain kind of eyeglasses, haircut, et cetera. This type of thing represents that type of ideology. And some of it may just be, if you've not experienced that, you didn't right, it didn't land because you didn't recognize it. Okay.

Lots to respond to there. And I can't remember everything you said. It's not just, you referenced, you know, the way the language hit me. I wouldn't say it's just a personal reaction. I don't really, it doesn't faze me at a personal level. It's more the concern for what is being modeled for young men and how is this shaping the overall pastoral culture we are cultivating. I wouldn't describe my biblical. I would agree with you that feminism is wrong.

I would also say that some of the reactions against feminism fall into pretty dark things. and there is misogynistic language that comes up. Another thing you said is the paint by the numbers, hermeneutics. I don't think that's my approach. I would say that there's a couple, this is complicated, but in a way I could sort of just simplify it all down

to say at least this much, which isn't everything to say hermeneutically about this, but it's maybe a good starting point. And that is, let's do the things that are really, really, really clear in scripture and really, really clear about the heart of Christ. If there is anything that is taught about our speech to non-Christians that is just hammered over and over and over again, it is the need for love, for grace, for respect, for image bearers. And then there is a call for boldness in the proclamation of the gospel that will include conviction of sin, speaking bluntly about sin.

However, a lot of the blunt language about scripture is also not all, but a lot of it is also focused upon covenant breakers who are hard-hearted in their covenant rebellion. So I actually think that's another issue here where in the hermeneical complexity of all this, we have to comb through that as well. There's a few times where Jesus will say about Herod, go tell that fox. Okay, you know, you have this kind of thing. It's not like the biblical authors can't speak derisively or the prophets of bail. Nonetheless, the overwhelming emphasis is towards people like the Pharisees, especially leaders among God's people who are leading the people astray. That's where they really crank it up. For what we are modeling, for our general posture toward the world, I would say the overwhelming emphasis should be upon what the Bible emphasizes.

And so, you know, I put up these passages like Titus 3-2 and Colossians 4, 5, and 6, and 1st Peter 315. You know, these are passages that are given to lay Christians to tell you, here's what you do. you know, it's like the instruction manual for this topic. When we get to Old Testament prophets, there it is, I'm not saying we only obey parts, not the whole. That, again, is a caricature of my position. What I am saying is there is hermeneutical complexity because of differences of context, differences of calling.

And I would say, as an example to show, this is not just me being a softie or something like that, there were debates among the ancient rabbis about which parts of the book of Ezekiel to read in the synagogues, not because. either of the groups of rabbis thought any less of the book of Ezekiel or were in any way sitting in a judgment upon what Ezekiel had done in his own context, rather because the use of biblical language is context-specific. And so if Ezekiel is speaking to hard-hearted covenant breakers, persisting generation after generation in things like child sacrifice, which they were, then he's cranking it up to a point. Now, then when we take that language, there's a need for pastoral guidance. So even when we read Ezekiel in the, like when I'm preaching on a passage like that, one thing I'll often do is just explain very clearly at the front and at the end.

This language is shocking. Here's why Ezekiel spoke in this way to these people. He had to unmask the evil that was present there. So I guess in the hermeneutics of this, I do have a concern about, as it's not paint by the numbers. It's just wanting to recognize, number one, differences of calling. Some things, when I say

we're not Jesus or we're not the apostles, I'm not saying don't fully follow them. I'm just saying, you know, hermeneutically recognize differences of calling and differences of context. And I think everybody's got to get to that when you get to Isaiah's nudity and other things like this.

But the overall concern is just, what is the net effect of our speech upon the non-Christian world. When is it actually unmasking evil, awakening the conscience? You mentioned the Shepherds in Ezekiel's Day. You don't think maybe they just doubled down. I actually, based upon passages

about the effectiveness of God's word, I'm thinking back to my experience in college, and our college pastor, I'm saying I actually think it would awaken the conscience. Well, although part of that was because Ezekiel was told specifically, like, you're going to go to them, and they're not going to listen.

So there's a particularization of his calling. Like you're going to go speak and they're not going to listen. I agree with the issue of calling. And this is part of why. And I think this is what Doug is written. The calling of that the satirist as a kind of like subset is a particular thing. Not everybody's called to be a satirist, just in the same way that not everybody's called to speak to be a preacher or, you know,

when I've taught on the way that the apostle, speak in the book of Acts, right? Paul saying, you son of the devil, to Elimus, the magician, you enemy of all righteousness, and then blinds him. Or when Stephen uncorks on the Sanhedron in Act 7, I've often said to lay people, your task is not to necessarily do this, right? Very few of you are going to be called to be in the setting and have to use this kind of direct harsh speech. but what you do need to be able to do is say amen when your pastor does. So that's, and that's someone, when you're concerned about the sensibilities, I understand you're concerned about imitations, cheap imitations, immature.

And I would say that what I would want to encourage if you're worried about young men getting too casual and loose with their speech, doing careless words, casual profanities, and so forth, I would say Doug's actually a really good model. Like out of millions of words that he's written, you can count on one hand. the ones that people bring up as a pastor over the years. And he's laid out pretty well. There's a great list at one point. He wrote about a godly satirist must be. And he just has all of these things like worshiping community. Your wife and children should never flinch when you come in the room because you're always shooting at him. You know, he needs to be a joyful man, a humble man, not an angry man.

So all of those traits are there. And as someone who's known him for over 15 years, I can say he models them really well. So I think, like, I think he's a really good example of this. And part of the issue that I see more broadly in the evangelical world is the people who object to the Moscow serrated edge, I go, well, is anybody else, if you saying this is permissible, like, this is a legitimate thing we can do, who's doing it? Like who, we live in a time of great evil and folly. who's wielding that particular tool of rebuke and exposure and prophetic denunciation, the satire, the straighted edge, who's doing it well? And it's like, I mean, the Babylon B, I guess, does it sometimes.

And Doug does it. But beyond that, it's the sort of thing that, well, we don't touch that because it's too dangerous. And I think that we're impoverished because I think that would be better if there were actually more responsible pastors. who knew how to do the Elijah and the Ezekiel, because you mentioned that this is one more thing, I think that maybe is a difference. How frequent we think satire, prophetic, harsh speech is in the Bible, because I think the prophets are just filled with it.

I think the mockery's there, Isaiah's filled with it, mocking the idolaters for, you know, chopping down the wood and then, you know, putting part of it in the fire and part of it they set up as an idol and bow down. I mean, he's scathing there. Oseo, Ezekiel, Amos, cows of basin, right, as a description of women who are luxurious, but he calls them cows, right? Like, that's a, it's a derogatory and demeaning term for the rich and opulent women of Israel

who are oppressing the poor. So that sort of name calling, I think is pretty frequent, actually, throughout the scriptures. And yet, because we're afraid to use it or we're concerned about, the effect. I don't think pastors wield it effectively. And I think for me, over the last 20 years since I've been reading Doug, I've been like, oh, there's someone who actually has it in the proportion, right? It's not all that he does, but it is a thing that he does and he does it really well. Okay. Well, again, too much there for me to respond to it all. But at least we've been able to kind of hash it out and each share our perspective. I'll give you the last word in a second.

I think maybe summatively, I would say, you're kind of painting those who don't follow in the model of Moscow as though they are afraid to go there or something like that. I don't think that's the motive at all. I mean, certainly not my motive. I'll say whatever God wants me to say. And I wouldn't agree about the frequency of this in Scripture either. But it's not fear to go there. It's that I don't think this is what the biblical model is. I think it looks different.

It smells different. its effects are different, and it's just in content as a point of fact different. You know, again, and I won't repeat all the points I made about the specific targeting of female body parts and these kinds of things which don't have a biblical foundation. So that is the difference and why I would say it's not a good model. In fact, I think it is a scandal to the gospel. And I would say it's not just like, oh, a couple of words sprinkled in. It is because it is defended and because it influences. people. So if a pastor gave an interview and he said something like abortion is no big deal.

And then in the aftermath, he defended that comment and that comment had an influence upon his parishioners. It would be no good defense if he said, well, that was just one interview. And I've literally done 5,000 other interviews. Because one incident is enough. And with the language that I'm shocked you're willing to defend as though that were comparable to like biblical rhetoric. One instance is enough, and in this case it's several. So I guess summatively my concern is where we disagree is I don't think this is biblical. I think it is not serving a godly, holy, sober effect of unmasking evil. I think it does actually just come across as just crude in the category of Ephesians 5-4. So that's my honest concern. Let me give you the last word and then we'll wrap it up.

Yeah, so the point about the number of times is more about proportionality. So when people act as though Moscow casually cusses or something like that, which I know you don't. Yeah, right. But that's often that this is all you do is this. There was a point about proportion, but you're right. We aren't apologizing for it because we don't think it was wrong. We think it was in that prophetic strain, the satirical strain of the Bible.

And so my basics, like the summation on my view is, the Bible commands us to speak with gentleness, patience, love, etc. Jesus and the apostles model what that kind of patience and love looks like, and therefore we look to them to fill out obedience to that command. Likewise, the Bible tells us to rebuke and reprove and correct sin and error. Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets model what that kind of rebuke looks like, and that modeling includes, at times, carefully targeted obscenities, vulgarities, images, and so forth,

and therefore we can imitate their example as we seek to obey the commands to rebuke. And so it's both of those together that I want to commend. And at the same time, if someone goes, yeah, I agree with all that principally and think that that was a whiff, that's fine. We don't have to agree.

But there is the sense of proportion, again, that I come back to of, it's like that image, you know Doug's use of that of that body part thing is really, really bad but it's like

calling fellow Christians like calling fellow conservative evangelicals satanic or insidious or having a non-Christian view of God because we disagree about political philosophy. It's though like that's the kind of sense of proportion difference.

So as long as it wasn't used, as long as there wasn't body parts used it's like that kind of over-the-top language is permissible or something in ways that this becomes a distraction from. So those are some of the like, I think we get out of order on where the grave evils actually are. And that's part of what the serrated edge exposes. Well, I will resist the urge to respond any further. I think it's been a good discussion, honestly. I mean, we've been able to just, yeah, it's fine that we don't agree.

we can talk and just clarify where we disagree and why. And then people watching along and say, okay, I got to sort out my own conscience on this and they can search the scripture, listen to the arguments and so forth. So I think it's been good. So thanks, Joe, for your willingness. May the Lord bless you. Anything we need to say before we sign off here. What are you working on right now? What are you writing these days? What am I writing these days? So I've been working on a book on Puddlegum for a while. It's kind of slow boil. Old Puddlegum's faith and basically breaking the enchantment of modernity, dark enchantment

of modernity. So I just gave a couple of talks on it that I've given before and I'm trying to refine that. And then working on a couple of things related to Christian nationalism, a chapter in a book, kind of a five-views book on Christians in America and political philosophy and so forth. So those are two of the big ones that are on the docket. But I would say, thanks for having me on. Yeah, it isn't, it is kind of rare to be able to not just snip at each other on Twitter or something, but to actually have a discussion, try to bring.

And I, like you, appreciate clarity. So even if we can't get to agreement, at least we can know where the fault line is, the actual one and not the imagined ones that so many people want to throw up there. So I appreciate you having me on. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, Lord bless you, Joe.

And thanks everybody for watching. And we will see you in the next video.