Yes, I totally see that. His name is still part of Him though, which was why I was saying it's no different blasheming His name than it is His character. Anyhow.

So do I. A backhand in the mouth will give you a sense of caution.

In other words, it amounts to the same thing. Blaspheming who He is.

Interesting that His Name, I AM WHO I AM describes His character.

What Bible verses would those who believe in allowing some swearing in their novels use to support this belief?

Possibly something like: "Thou shalt not kill."

Some might claim that, by reductio ad absurdum, the fact that God forbids killing voids the argument that "because God/the Bible says swearing is wrong, therefore we should include no swearing in our books". We frequently include killing in fiction we consider to be acceptable, and we do this to illustrate the brokeness and conflict in the fictional world and tell the story (same as with swearing, they would say).

I'm not certain where I stand on the issue, myself. I read through the webpage posted by Sir Emeth near the beginning of this thread, and it's pretty insightful and convincing.

But if I, myself, were to defend a use of swearing in fiction, I'd use the above argument, and possibly also stuff like:
To argue that to show brokenness, to show gritty reality, is part of reaching out to people--not just non-Christians, but to anyone who has experienced living in less-than-optimal circumstances.

And argue that writing fiction "with all your heart, working for the Lord" might include dealing with profane subject material.

Since God says both swearing and murder are wrong, but the Bible contains examples of murder and does not contain examples of swearing, this argument doesn't hold up.

The Bible is "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16), but I don't think that necessarily makes it a template for every kind of literature.

Also, the particular way people swear today is part of our culture, and we don't know how that kind of "swearing" was integrated into the culture in Biblical times. But I do sometimes wonder what we'd get by translating "You snakes! You brood of vipers!" into modern english

*echoes this*

Ah, you added more.

If we are working for the Lord, not for men, then we should be working by the Lord's standards, not man's. Thus it depends on whether or not swearing is a sin.

Nor should there be obscenity... Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. -- Ephesians 5:4a, 6-7

Not for every kind of literature, but for the content of every kind of literature.


I looked at the literal Greek, and "snake" was a religious insult that compared someone to Satan, while "viper" was just a literal comparison of someone to a venomous snake. All such phrases as used by Jesus were accurate assessments of the person's character, and we cannot know whether or not they were considered swearing, though it seems doubtful. Regardless, they are obviously not random insults or general swearing, and so would have little impact on the use of swearing in fiction either way.

We hold ourselves to the Lord's standards, yes; there's no question about that. The question here is how we portray, in our written fiction, characters who do not hold themselves to the Lord's standards. How much and which parts of their sins do we censor?

Only indirectly. Scripture tells us to glorify God in all we say and make and do. What literature we write should glorify God directly and/or indirectly. How it does that depends on genre. For genres that include portrayal of sin and brokeness (which is a lot of them), same question as above: how do we portray it? The Bible provides us tools to answer the question, but to just say "well, if it's not in the Bible, don't include it in your book" may not be a very efficient use of those tools.

Fair enough. My point was that the difference in culture makes it a non-trivial question, deciding whether all the things we call "swearing" fall under the category of things rejected in the Ephesians reference.

Exactly. The balance comes from comparing how the Bible portrays a certain issue and what it says about that issue and similar issues. The Bible gives (directly or indirectly, depending on the issue) lines that shouldn't be crossed, and those would apply even for characters who are insinuated to cross those lines. Some genres will not get near those lines. Others will go right to the edge of those lines. But no fiction of any genre should cross those lines. We cannot glorify God by going outside of the lines He told us not to cross.

Yes, and not an easy task, as indicated in part by the presence of this thread!

This sounds a little more like how I see the issue. To me, the concern I have that most strongly disfavours swearing is how the sin is actually "carried through" the medium conveying the story. Let's compare using murder and sexual encounter.

If a movie depicts a murder, the watcher sees and understands that something wrong has been done. He does not commit murder in his heart.

If a movie depicts a sexual encounter, the watcher sees and lustful thoughts are (probably) induced in his head. Regardless of whether the sexual encounter being depicted was sinful in the story or not, the problem is when the watcher commits adultery in his heart. (I'm sure you would agree that, even though the Bible contains plenty of sexual content in varying degrees of suggestiveness *coughSongOfSongs*, this does not automatically ok the use of such content in any literature)

So, the way I see it, swearing falls somewhere between these categories. My understanding from scripture is that unwholesome talk is bad because it's not something healthy to be immersed in. And even when it's just quotations from a bad character, to include the words in our book immerses the reader to some degree in the same language. And this is a good reason to not include the language in the book--not that it is a sin (it's the character's sin, not ours), but rather why it's a sin (the unhealthy effect, regardless of source).
So, to me, the time when it would be okay to include swearing in a book is if, somehow, the negative impact of the language is smaller then the positive impact its presence allows (say, to help the reader identify with the situation, realism, to illustrate pain/grief, etc.). And this depends on the reader, and thus the target audience of the book.

It helps to apply objective Biblical standards to our understanding of this issue, rather than subjective cultural standards.


That is a good thing to note.


Yes, I agree that there are appropriate and inappropriate places for certain content.


We cannot control some of the things that we will be exposed to, but we can control what we expose others to. Saying that we must do a bit of bad to do a lot of good doesn't add up. The ends do not justify the means. We are seeing swear words as holding more power to break through to someone than the Holy Spirit. Also, while novels have target audiences, the fact remains that those outside of the target audience are guaranteed to read them and be exposed to whatever is in them.

Funny thing, though, I witness more strongly to the many people in my life who swear frequently by not swearing. In fact, they comment on it, and not because they feel like I am judging them because I don't swear, anymore than they feel like I am judging them because I don't partake in the alcohol at the table.

I feel just a little like you're putting words in my mouth, here. I never said we "must" do anything. And I certainly never claimed swearing as holding more power of any sort than the Holy Spirit! But the Spirit works through many channels, including people's testimonies and (God willing) fictional stories, too (please note--this does not mean I am ascribing the same authority found in Scripture to testimonies or stories). The content of testimonies and stories are rarely devoid of sinful elements. How we present these sinful elements is part of how we control what we expose others to, as you rightly point out. Is presenting the sinful element explicitly always a good idea? Definitely not. Is it never a good idea? While I wouldn't be comfortable to assert a definite answer to that, my current inclination would be that it is sometimes a good idea and can be helpful.

Finally, you're right that people outside a work's target audience will sometimes be exposed to the work, but I do not see that as being reason to not produce the work. Only to be careful with how one markets/distributes it. The author has the responsibility to communicate whom a work is meant for; readers and parents of readers have the responsibility to control to some degree or other what is read.

For sure! And hopefully a story would include characters who witness in this way, or the cultural equivalent for their world.

Sorry if it seemed that way. I was not directing it towards you, but towards the argument itself as it is popularly presented. Also, "must" was referring to specific uses, not implying that you said we "must" do something.


As I said before, I think there is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and though some works may need to push all the way to the edge of that line, they shouldn't cross it.


I see readers, parents, and writers all having a certain amount of responsibility. However, a Christian author is going to be perceived as both "safe" and a role model. Readers, even if warned that it is "edgy", are not going to expect swearing in a Christian novel. Furthermore, those who read it are going to see it as the author saying that it is acceptable for Christian authors to have swearing in their novels. Those are not reasons to not produce the work, but rather to leave out the few unnecessary details that add nothing to the work.

Adding swearing does not add to a novel's power. Good writing makes a story powerful, and the blessing of God makes a story touch lives. Our job as Christian writers is not to most vividly depict a sinful world, but to most vividly depict God’s love in a sinful world. We are hurting our efforts if we add things to our works that aren't necessary. Because of our good intentions, the works may be fruitful, but we will still be held accountable for the content.

I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. -- Matthew 12:36

This verse applies as much to words we write as words we speak.

Another reason I don't want to be labeled as a Christian author.

In regards to your last comments there, I have read books with scenes that I felt could've greatly benefitted from some realistic cussing in the dialogue. As it was done, it just fell flat. Perhaps there is an alternative, perhaps not. The fact remains that a little swearing can be quite effective.

I have had situations where the use of a swear word holds great significance for the theme at that moment in the book. (By the way, that theme IS Christian in nature.)

Well said. I guess my thoughts on bad language in writing have a lot to do with a. how strong and b. placement. A book with a lot of strong swearing has no impact on me and detracts from the story, ending up that I stop reading it. It didn't add to the story at all, but rather made it unreadable.

However, if I read a book that had no swearing except for one mild swear word in a powerful scene, it makes the emotion of the scene much more vivid because a character was put under enough pressure to emit quite a mild word.

The former is wrong. The latter is where I waver. Though I have never written bad language into any of my work, I have read - and appreciated - good books that comply with the latter remarkably well. I guess this is where I am caught pondering.

On the whole though, I do think bad language is quite unnecessary in writing if one simply writes very well. And now that I think of it, if one is simply adding language to a story without any thought other than "It makes the story cooler", it only serves to remind me of something my brother has often told me on the subject: "Swearing and profanity only serves to advertise your own stupidity."

I like that. Most swearing does fall into that category.

I've read those types of scenes, too. However, that says nothing about whether writing swearing is right or wrong, only about how challenging it is to write certain types of scenes effectively. Before we could ask if swearing would benefit such a scene, we have to answer for ourselves whether swearing is ever permissible at all. I have gradually become convinced from the Bible, and with additional evidence from observation, that it is neither allowable nor beneficial for Christians to have swearing in their novels, particularly since all the arguments I have ever heard for them having it are based on subjective circumstances rather than an objective Biblical foundation.


When someone burst out with a swear word during an emotional scene in any novel I've read that otherwise had no swearing, the usage always felt awkward and unnecessary. I'm sure there are some ways it could be used where it wouldn't seem awkward, but it would still be unnecessary.


I agree.

I don't know what's been brought up so far, so this might've been talked about already. But what exactly do we mean by 'swearing'? Using God's name in vain is one thing, and that's not something I would write. But words that are culturally considered 'cussing' but have valid, non-vulgar meanings (d--n comes to mind)...where do they fall? How can we judge the words without considering the cultural context of those words? Meanings change, and I'm pretty sure that it won't be too long before 'd--n' is accepted as a normal, non-offensive adjective. In fact, I would argue that in a context where it's used for its adjective/verb meaning, it shouldn't be offensive at all. Why would it be offensive as an exclamation, then? It's still the same word.

In cases like this it comes down to motive on the part of the person speaking the word, and so it's not the word that's the problem so much as the anger and wickedness of the speaker, which nobody would have a moral problem with writing about...

Do you know of some examples of words that were originally considered swearing but are considered fine now?

In relation to that word Matt, the area I struggle with is where the word becomes not a cuss, but a curse. But that's a whole other topic.

Um...
Are you saying that your assertion that swearing in novels is wrong comes from an "objective Biblical foundation"? That's something I would be inclined to challenge, although this particular thread may not be the place for it. (It could get complicated fast, since it would depend on your definition of "objective", etc.)
But suffice it to say, for now, that I don't think I'd swallow it if you're just telling me that my (and Luke's, it seems) interpretation of the Bible is subjective and yours isn't.

Not off the top of my head, but yes, I'm pretty sure I've heard of words that used to be 'dirty' and are now just everyday words.


The two terms are often synonymous, but yeah, a curse can be a whole different thing.

Is it wrong to write about a character cursing another, then?


*is with cephron on this*

Any of you read Shakespeare? Like him?

His works are full of 'cussing' and sexual innuendos, things that just don't carry the same meaning these days.

AHA. Remembered one.

In archaic usage, a wench was a prostitute. Now, it's an informal term for a young woman.

I know usually words go the opposite way, from being fine to having negative connotations, and then eventually to being swear words. But vice versa does happen.

Also, some words became 'cuss' words because of cultural connotations of class. One such word is 'ass'. The French aristocracy wouldn't be caught saying a word for that part of the body used by the lower class, oh no, they said derriere. As if it means anything different.

Haha, Luke!

Say, Jonathan, would you be okay with one character in a novel calling another one an "ill-begotten sluggard!" ?

How about a "lazy b-----d!" ?

Same meaning, I think. There is a difference, but I'd say it's a cultural sensitivity--certainly not something with objective basis.

Exactly. It's not objective at all.

I'm not saying anything about anyone in particular. Everyone needs to have proven to themselves from the Bible and from observation, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their view of swearing is in line with the Bible. If they are right, then they can stand on it and not worry about what others think.

Interesting, though, that we all know that your position is definitely not wrong...I mean, it's not wrong to believe that using swearing at all is wrong.

But by what you believe, we're in the wrong. That may be where the slight connotation of 'saying something about someone' is coming from.

We're dancing around the topic of objectivity and subjectivity, the Bible and absolute truth. That would be so fun to talk about, but I think we'll have to let Jonathan do the leading on how far off-topic we can go in this thread...

In the meantime, Jonathan, did you look at the comparison of the two insults I listed--the Shakespearian one and a modern equivalent. I'm curious to hear your thoughts about it?

This example gives me two questions: All swear words have the same meaning as other words, so does that make all swear words acceptable for use? God's name has the same meaning as other words, so does that make it acceptable to use His name in vain?

I'll be back after I've slept. I'm so tired...

Goodnight, Luke!

My answers to your questions are: no, and no.

My questions to you are:
1) On what basis does the term "b-----d" fall under the category of "not acceptable"?
2) Why does this not apply to "ill-begotten" or "misbegotten"?
3) Does the term "n----r" (black person) fall under the category of "not acceptable"?

To save time, I'll say what I'm getting at--which is also what Luke's getting at, it seems--that which words are offensive or considered "swearwords" are culture-dependant. This means that, depending on your audience, different words will be acceptable for direct verbal use or not. (I think this is again different from the question of whether it is acceptable to have, in the text, words which are unacceptable for direct verbal use. But it's a good point to make anyways...)

Just as a side note, this argument has several issues. Our culture says homosexuality is acceptable and normal. It's not offensive. Doesn't mean that that is true.



I would like to point out that that word is still considered very dirty. It is only used as an insult. After all, how many brothers do you know who call their sister a wench? People would wince if you did so. I can also tell you that my Daddy, and any other man I know, would be insulted if a man made a reference to me like that.

It hasn't really changed.

I think it's kind of localized. I've heard it used innocently, and would never have considered taking offense.

On another note, up until the last page or two, this conversation has been phenomenal. Cephron has brought up arguments I've never even heard before; and I've been very impressed by the manners of everyone involved. Carry on.

It may be an insult to some people, but it's not considered 'vulgur' any more than 'idiot' is.

Correct, however the meanings of words is an issue far different than actual sin being accepted. A word means only what it means to people who hear it. If d--n someday means 'painful', and that's what everybody understands it as, then it would no longer be offensive.

We have plenty of words with offensive beginnings that are no longer offensive.

It's kind of like the Christmas issue...I think it's a little ridiculous to refuse to celebrate Christmas because it started as a pagan holiday. No offense to anybody who believes that.

Oh, let's not open that can of worms.
At least, not on this thread.

*hammers lid on worms and gives Matt a knowing look*

*tosses can of worms back in the cupboard* Right.

Moving on...

Interestingly enough, I took a survey. No one said they would use Wench as a neutral term for girl. It has negative connotations.

Neither would I!

Fact remains that it used to be pretty much equivalent to today's sl-- or wh---. However, it no longer is, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is blanking it out in this thread.

It's an archaic term. I don't think anyone would use it for what it means, either. I think the only place I actually hear it used in modern conversation is at RenFaires, and they don't use it historically accurate; they use it as an archaic word for females, really. If I remember correctly. (I used to think it was just a servant, like the female equivalent of knave, because I was too young to understand that kind of context when I first learned it... so I have never associated it negatively.)

I think, because it's an archaic word, and because now it's understood to be just an informal (and sometimes negative) term for a young woman, we put the two together, when in reality, the archaic meaning WAS prostitute.

Before we can look at specific words, we need to settle on general rules. How do you decide what swear words are acceptable and what ones are not?

That was the point--there are no objective rules here. There are rules of thumb, perhaps, but it comes down to cultural sensitivities. We can't decide what words are swearwords, it's something we are taught, case-by-case.
The exception to this would be taking the Lord's name in vain, I think. I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing, regardless of culture.