“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7 ESV)
I was rather disappointed that my post Did Flannery O’Connor Write Christian Fiction? digressed into a discussion about cursing in Christian fiction, particularly taking the Lord’s name in vain (or to be more exact, having one of our characters do so). Anyway, during that conversation, much was assumed and implied about that particular expletive. I’d like to take a couple of minutes to address what I feel is our erroneous approach.
Let me begin with my thesis:
We have wrenched the Third Commandment from its context and reduced it to a simplistic formula, which betrays the very superstition it decries. As a result, Christians (or professing Christians) take the name of God in vain far more than do foul-mouthed unbelievers.
Most Americans assume, whether through conscience, social mores, or religious tradition, that taking the name of the Lord in vain means saying the phrase… “goddammit.” Christians take this a step further. We believe that the person who utters that phrase, whether it is used as an expletive, quoted, referenced, cited, or put in the mouth of a fictional character, is categorically profane.
I personally believe this approach is unbiblical and borderline superstition. Let me explain.
For one, God’s name is not… God. The English transliteration of the Hebrew name revealed to Moses is YHWH. Some translate the word as Yahweh or Jehovah. Call this a technicality, if you will. Nevertheless, the word “God” is generic for any deity or supreme being. Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, Baptists, Buddhists, even atheists all use the word “God” in one way or another.
Believing as Christians do that there are false gods, if one curses in the name of their “god,” have they broken the Third Commandment? (I mean, does Zeus damn you! really deserve a lightning bolt?) Or can only those of a Judeo-Christian worldview take the name of God in vain? (Meaning all you druids are off the hook.) And if we are approaching this thing literally, then taking the name of God in vain would have to involve His actual name. Which means asking Yahweh or Jehovah to damn something (a request actually made by several biblical prophets) is really the offending phrase. Unless, of course, certain things are God damned.
Secondly, the commandment really has more to do with careless, frivolous oaths, than it does speaking any one particular word or phrase. Judaism 101 explains it this way:
In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God’s Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as “in vain” literally means “for falsehood”).
In other words, taking the name of the Lord in vain would be something like swearing by Jehovah, the God of Israel, that you did not swipe your neighbor’s plow, when in fact you did. Jesus appeared to speak to this when He said, “Do not swear an oath at all” (Matt. 5:33-37), for as this commentary explains, “oaths by definition called on a deity to witness them.” In this sense, taking God’s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.
In Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain, Credo House helps us understand the context of the Third Commandment.
The nations to which the Israelites were going had many gods. They were highly superstitious. Their prophets would often use the name of their god in pronouncements. The usage could be in a curse, hex, or even a blessing. They would use the name of their god to give their statements, whatever they may be, authority. To pronounce something in their own name would not have given their words much weight, but to pronounce something in the name of a god meant that people would listen and fear. They may have said, “In the name of Baal, there will be no rain for 40 days.” Or “In the name of Marduk, I say that you will win this battle.” This gave the prophet much power and authority. But, as we know, there is no Baal or Marduk. Since this is the case, they did not really make such pronouncement and therefore the words of the prophet had no authority and should neither have been praised or feared.
God was attempting to prevent the Israelites from doing the same thing. God was saying for them not to use His name like the nations used the names of their gods. He did not want them to use His name to invoke false authority behind pronouncements. In essence, God did not want the Israelites to say that He said something that He had not said.
This interjects another angle into our understanding of taking the Lord’s name in vain, doesn’t it? It’s why noted Bible teacher Chuck Missler suggested that taking the Lord’s name in vain is less about vocabulary than it is about “ambassadorship.” In other words, we represent the character and power and dignity (the Name) of our God on this earth. We must live in such a way as to not trivialize, prostitute, and misrepresent Him. This is why I say that believers (or professing believers) take the name of God in vain far more often than do foul-mouthed unbelievers. Why? Because it’s not about our vocabulary but our overall witness.
If we reduce taking God’s name in vain to simply a string of words, not only are we missing the larger point of the commandment, we are potentially promoting superstition.
Remember that old urban legend about the Candyman? Stand in front of the mirror and say “Candyman” five times and you’re dead. As if the right (or wrong?) combination of words catalyzes some universal formula. How is our conception about taking God’s name in vain any different? You know, string those two words together and suddenly you’ve crossed the line. Like saying “Candyman” for the fifth and final time.
This, I believe, is evidence of a “touch not, taste not, handle not” (Col. 2:21) mentality that permeates Evangelicalism today. We demonize things — music, clothes, foods, art, objects, places, and words. It’s total paganism. The belief that a specific string of words is inherently profane is akin to sorcery. It is “abracadabra” in reverse.
Furthermore, if the real issue is not using the word “God” carelessly, then commonly accepted sayings like “God bless you” and “oh my God” are equally as sinful. I mean, do we really mean to invoke God’s blessings on someone who sneezes? Do unbelievers have the ability to summon such a blessing? Or is it just a stupid, yet well-intentioned, cultural idiom? Saying “God bless you” when someone sneezes can be as “vain” and meaningless as saying “God damn you” when someone doesn’t.
Of course, some people who use the aforementioned expletive ARE being flippant, profane, sloppy, and sacrilegious. I’m not defending them. The Bible is very clear about the power of words, the venom in our tongues, and our responsibility to watch how we speak. However, the Bible does not specify a hierarchy of cusswords. And neither should we.
Your thoughts?
I see what you’re saying here and I agree with almost all of it.
You said: We believe that the person who utters that phrase, whether it is used as an expletive, quoted, referenced, cited, or put in the mouth of a fictional character, is categorically profane.
I don’t believe this. Don’t agree with this. When someone uses God’s name or Christ’s name flippantly or as a swear word it bothers me. But it doesn’t means that I think the person or character is categorically profane. That’s just silly.
Using Jesus Christ’s name as a swear word? That’s always, always, always going to bother me. Call me superstitious, but that’s not where my heart is. Hearing people use His name flippantly or as a swear word or for shock value….it just makes my toes curl. Do I think they are categorically profane? No. Do I wish they’d use a different swear word? Yes.
Which probably falls into the category of Mike’s coda: “Of course, some people who use the aforementioned expletive ARE being flippant, profane, sloppy, and sacrilegious. I’m not defending them. The Bible is very clear about the power of words, the venom in our tongues, and our responsibility to watch how we speak. However, the Bible does not specify a hierarchy of cusswords. And neither should we.”
But the much greater point is that the superstition against what people perceive to be the 3rd commandment, and what the 3rd commandment really is (and, as mentioned expanded by Christ during his ministry) is probably the gulf that causes such thoughtless rejection of Flannery O’Connor’s life work advancing the notion of the Incarnation to an unbelieving people as magically sinful.
It bothers me, too, when people use the name of Jesus Christ to curse, but not because I think it wounds Jesus, or is a personal offense to me, but because it is often the cry of one (either Christian or not) lost in the wilderness, or even drowning, who will not or cannot find the Way. It is, at the very least, a distress signal, one that I am, for various reasons, frequently unable to address, or address with success.
When a character in a book does it, it is no more expressing the way things ought to be than Blood Meridian advocates the scalping of ones enemies.
The third commandment is addressing those who carelessly aim their thumb at God’s eye, not those who carelessly strike it with a hammer.
So, “GDit”, as well as “JC” and “In the name of Christ” are to be used when appropriate.
“GDit” – Christians are not to judge, God is to judge, so we shouldn’t be ‘damning’ anything or anyone. (Also, this makes unbelievers think even less of us)
“JC” – I agree that this also bugs me when I hear it. Again, as in a popular rap song, we must “Brush it off our shoulder”, and let it go (prayer can help).
“In the name of Christ/Christ Compels You” – What scriptural evidence do we have that this is Not using His name in vain?
I appreciate your comments, Katie. I felt that, in my O’Connor post, some implied that I had sinned and profaned the Lord’s name simply by quoting that paragraph. It’s understandable if we treat this in a formulaic fashion. And I share your revulsion for the way “Jesus Christ” is used. Still, the person who misuses Christ’s name is more in need of a relationship with Him than they are in need of having their mouth washed out with soap. Thaanks, Katie!
AMEN, Mike! I couldn’t agree more with you about needing a relationship with Him vs. needing their mouths washed wish soap.
I was thinking today, as I was running, about why using Jesus Christ as a swear word bothers me so much. And I think I figured it out. Even though it is just a name – when I hear it, I think of Jesus, and when I think of Jesus, my heart fills with worship. So to hear it used in such a crass manner…..it just makes me sad.
I agree with you, both. My heart goes out to the ones who use Christ’s name as a cuss word because they miss out on the real power of the One they call.
I feel the same as Katie when I hear it, though. The verse: “at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, on earth and under the earth …” fills my head.
I’m not sure why this is such a revelation to some. When you act, speak, or pray in someone’s ‘name’ you are acting in their stead, like the ambassador you mentioned. It’s a very basic Bible teaching. The name of ‘Jesus’ isn’t a lucky rabbit’s foot you can pin on the end of your petition, or life.
Someone said “What you are is talking so loud I can’t hear what you say.” Taking the Lord’s name in vain is to profane or devalue Him with our conduct while professing to be Christians. Dear God, we’ve all encountered vicious religious people who attack and belittle others. Swearing would have at least made it honest.
I’m not excusing vile language but it’s really a matter of the spirit, or the “abundance of the heart.” Which is what God is primarily concerned with, right?
I just heard the same message from the pulpit last Sunday. Really eloquently said, sir, and much appreciated.
I’m glad you addressed this Mike. I haven’t mourned the Christian abandonment of art and culture to the devouring lion ever so much as I did the day O’Connor’s work was so easily dismissed by so many who weren’t even aware of her existence.
I really hate taking us to task, but of all the places where readers of fiction who are interested (either by faith or curiousity) in Christianity, this would have been the one place where I simply assumed O’Connor held a place among Dunsany, Lewis and L’Engle. As silly as the “sin” comments were, just as tragic was the large contingency of those intelligent, well-read and thoughtful people who haven’t even heard of her.
This was no boutique and esoteric author: she was the most powerful and widely read evangelist of the incarnate Christ in fiction of the latter half of the twentieth century.
Our sin isn’t language.
It is illiteracy.
The superstition you speak of is so easily conflated with the scriptural mandate to control our tongues, that we end up inspiring timid artists, censored thinkers and prophets without words to express damnation.
How is that, in any way, shape or form, a defense or advance of the Gospel?
“– we end up inspiring timid artists, censored thinkers and prophets without words to express damnation.”
Truer words…
Brilliant reply. Thank you.
Humans are superstitious by nature and the using of magic talisman or incantations gives those who use them the feeling of mastery over what they do not understand.
Words do, however, convey meaning otherwise we are all wasting our time speaking and writing in such forums. The term ” goddammit ” is no more profane, and probably less so, than the ” christian ” who claims the name of Christ yet lives under the banner of the World.
The flippant and derogatory manner in which the name of my Savior is used does bother me greatly. Not because, as others have said, that it harms him, but rather because He means so much to me. I believe it is akin to someone mocking your Mom or Dad on the playground, those people mean the world to you and you want to defend their honor and good name. Jesus does not need us to defend His name but the feelings of anger and even sadness that someone would speak in such a manner of one that I love so much and has done so much for me still exist.
Still thinking…
Without considering non-English speaking languages and the specific words considered profane in other cultures, locking up at the F O’C’s character’s language is like yelling at Jesus for healing on the Sabbath. Like a suicide bomber – your heart is in the right place but you’re missing the point.
Jesus was constantly directing people to the principle behind the regulation, insisting they employ discernment and judge a right judgment; lustful fantasizing, eating with unwashed hands, straining at gnats, David eating temple bread, plucking grain on the Sabbath, the widow’s mite, the gold or God of the alter, etc, etc.
When God asked the Hebrews to bind His Law on their forehead and right hands do you really think he envisioned phylacteries? Or was He referring to their thought life and what they gave their strength to? Oddly enough, people somehow found it easier to strap cigar boxes on their head and wrists as indicators of their ‘righteousness’ than embrace the fact that God does not look upon the outward as man does, and He desires truth in the inner parts.
Consider Judas dealing with the Pharisees. When he walked in and started talking, did they all look up and think “Thank Yahweh! Finally, a good Jewish boy who respects the Torah and our authority. That Jesus fella is a deceiver, a madman, a half-breed, and a devil anyway!” ?
But at that point Judas was the one possessed and that was the Second Person of the Godhead they were talking about.
Talk about an epic fail.
It’s more than a hierarchy of cuss words; this has to do with discernment and exercising faith in a broken world. Of all the people on the planet, Christians, who profess the reality of the eternal God and unseen realms beyond this one, who strive to see people’s very souls redeemed, should be masters at seeing past the cosmetics to the content.
But here we are instead. God help us.
Mike,
First of all, this was a very thoughtful and well-researched/documented post. I am learning as I grow older that some things in Evangelicalism that I always took on face value have more nuance.
When I was first out of high school I went on a mission training and outreach program with YWAM. Many of us were young and naive. We started flippantly saying “Praise the Lord” for the silliest, most trivial things. “I found my pen, PTL.” At some point we became convicted of this very idea, that while sounding “Christian-y” we were actually taking His name in vain. That lesson has stuck with me.
As far as Flannery O’Conner, I read Wise Blood a year or two ago knowing that I needed to understand this pioneer of Christian fiction. I didn’t mind her swearing, but I really couldn’t get her style. I appreciate what she says about fiction and how to reach people with its power, but personally I just don’t like her work. I guess I’m not as enlightened as I hoped 😉
Keep up the thought-provoking work.
Jason
It isn’t about liking O’Connor at all. Southern Gothic tales aren’t entertaining or engaging for all readers, so one can certainly be enlightened and not like her stories.
The concern I have is those who don’t recognize her importance (or even her existence) enough to read her work for themselves, and work to understand it. You did that, and it is completely sufficient for you to speak to her writings and impact.
Of course, I would recommend you read other short stories of hers before completely writing her off as “not for you” but you’ve certainly done beyond the minimum necessary to have an informed thought on her work.
I find it most unfortunate that we quibble about such things, but at the same time, we’ve allowed God’s true name to be stripped from our Bible translations. Why is it that Yahweh has been replaced by LORD? Why have we been led away by Jewish superstition? When we are told to call on the name of the LORD, many of us don’t even know what that name is, either to call on it, let alone swear by it. When (I think it was Jeremiah**) prophesied that the name of Yahweh would be removed from the mouths of his people, that is what happened, to the point that Jewish people are still superstitious to this day about speaking God’s name. Why have we taken on their curse, I’d like know?
**I just looked it up. “Nevertheless hear the word of the LORD, all Judah who are living in the land of Egypt, ‘Behold, I have sworn by My great name,’ says the LORD, ‘never shall My name be invoked again by the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, “As the Lord GOD lives.” This was a curse on the people, obviously for the tribe of Judah at a specific time and place, but it’s clear that removing God’s name from his people is not a good thing. So, again, I ask, why have we done this to ourselves?!
I am so in love with this comment in one way, and trepiditious about it in another.
I have to do a bit of research to refresh my mind on this subject but I do believe off the top of my head that this was a decision made during the Wyclif and King James translations, and made to communicate to those reading the English Bible for the first time that God is the ultimate power.
Given that Lordships and Kingships were the ultimate power known to those English speakers and lay readers of those translations, it packed a lot of punch to say that God was the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and the use of the word LORD in place of YHWH was to continue that tradition. Although the King James does use “Jehovah” (a mispronunciation of the Tetragrammaton) in a few instances.
But keep in mind that this was also at the time of a lot of alchemical teaching and thought. People were still using YHWH (See Tetragammatron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton) in spellwork and science–which then were almost indistinguishable.
You ask a very good question that folks like me have been researching for years. The quickest answer I can give you is that across the board it is less offensive to the greatest number of people to use LORD than to speak the name of YHWH.
I’m almost certain our translators were following the Jewish tradition of replacing the name of God with Adonai, which translates as Lord. And, really, who are we worried about offending? This is only one passage from scripture in which God’s people are told to call on the name of God:
Isaiah 12:3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. 4 And in that day shall ye say, Praise the LORD, call upon his name, declare his doings among the people, make mention that his name is exalted.
I wonder what God thinks of his name being stripped from his scriptures. And, although I haven’t made a great study of this, I maintain that God desires us to call on his name–and that’s a very hard thing to do when many don’t even know his name. And I’m not certain mispronunciations are an essential problem, either. We’re native English speakers, rather than Hebrew speakers, and I’m almost positive God understands our accents.
Well, for one, God gives several names for God’s self in scripture, some of which are female.
(See names of God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism)
These names emphasise God’s existence over and through all things and in all circumstance. When Moses asked which name he should present to Pharoah, God gave the one name that I prefer as it is both genderless and without anthropomorphic ascriptions: I AM.
In other words, there are many names for God, among all and through all, and I think when we call upon God we acknowledge the I AM. So whether we say “God” or “Elohim” or “Yahweh” matters not as much as the fact that we acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God.
I generally agree w/ this: “So whether we say “God” or “Elohim” or “Yahweh” matters not as much as the fact that we acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God.”
But at the same time, I would argue that God doesn’t have many names. He has many titles and descriptors that mean lord and master. Jesus calls him by another title, Father. If he does have multiple sacred names, then I would wonder why it is that there is only one name being supplanted by LORD. And calling on the name of God becomes meaningless if he has multiple names.
What is his female name? I’ve never heard that before.
Sorry it took so long to respond. I actually debate if this is the place for such a thing as it goes into a controversial territory.
The main female name for God is “Shekinah” and it appears throughout the first Testament. The Shekinah is the aspect of God that dwells among the people and while the Latin translations of text give a masculine gender to the Holy Spirit, the Hebrew word for Spirit (the word Jesus would have used) is ruach. If we look at the First Testament origins–the Shekinah–the Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of God. Since that spirit was sent to comfort and abide with the church, to see it as a feminine counterpart toward the masculine Father God is to some in the church a natural progression. There are several scholars within the church who are moving toward a Father-Son-Mother view of the trinity in an effort to be truer to the Judaic roots of the Christian church and to further bring women into affinity with God.
I personally believe God to be genderless except in the person of Jesus Christ. I’m not quite sure where I stand on the issue of feminising the Holy Spirit. It makes intellectual sense; whether or not it is necessary is another question altogether.
Jill and Katherine, I find your discussion fascinating! I have always thought of God as genderless (except for the revelation of Himself through Christ) and believe that Adam and Eve are representative of this. Both are created in the image of God but with gender distinctness. So insofar as gender embodies / expresses God’s image, wouldn’t that make Him both? Or is it neither? Thank you both for your interesting insights.
I’m actually glad you came back, Katherine, because I wanted to know what you meant by that ambiguous comment. Some people believe Eloah is a feminine title for God, and that El Shaddai is feminine. I’ll have to look into the Shekinah. I’m not certain where I would fall in this argument–on whether God is neither masculine nor feminine, or whether he encompasses both. I lean toward him encompassing both, but not in the same way that humans do–definitely not a holy hermaphrodite. It’s as you say, except in the person of Jesus Christ, God isn’t a man or a woman.
Well, I think physical aspects of gender are necessitated by our inheritance of death and subsequent need to reproduce. (It’s an intellectual conundrum for me, as I wonder if the pre-fall Adam and Eve had genitalia. I’ve read a lot of speculative stuff on the topic but nothing more than just a sort of intellectual play. )
I definitely think that God does serve as the source from which all attributes eminate–both those we think of as traditionally masculine and those we think of as traditionally feminine. God judges and God nurtures. I do think it’s a shame that folks associate the feminine aspects with femininity and therefore with Goddess worship and paganness because I think there is a lot of legitimate comfort and guidance we lose by culturally downplaying that which is a wholly scriptural take on God. (See St. Julian of Norwich.)
But I understand it.
I do get nervous because (and yes, this is topical for me) I often think more and more that one of the ways Christians “take the name of the Lord in Vain” is by overpersonalising God, sort of remaking God to his or her own style. Like The Shack guy. Or like the people who say “My Loving God would never do____” or “A Just God would never _____.” We like to take the wholeness of God, trim it down to what fits our worldview and then re-name THAT incomplete hot mess “God”. And that to me is taking the name of God in vain. So I hesitate to join in the whole “let’s say the Holy Spirit is a woman!” club. But I also think there is wisdom in accepting the truth that God’s nature is infinite and beyond our comprehension and certainly includes–because we’ve been told so in Scripture–aspects that are more traditionally believed to be “feminine” by humans.
Jill,
I think the reason God’s name has been “stripped” from the Scriptures may have less to do with the church taking upon itself the Jewish superstition and more to do with the church trying to sever itself from its Jewish roots. If I remember history correctly, by the year 100 AD, not only had the Jewish rabbis made an effort to expel the followers of Christ from the synagogues, but Gentile believers had decided they no longer wanted the church to reflect Jewishness at all. And though it took many centuries after this, the church eventually reached the point where it forced Jewish believers to live less like Jews and more like Gentiles. To this day, I still hear anti-Jewish sentiments among brothers and sisters. By “anti-Jewish sentiments,” I don’t mean that these brothers and sisters despise the Jews and don’t want to share Jesus with them; rather, I mean these brothers and sisters view the keeping of any Jewish traditions, such as the Feasts, as attempting works-based righteousness. Which I find very sad considering Paul said in Corinthians that he would gladly live like a Jew in order to win the Jews to Christ.
Nathan, I’m not sure how following a non-biblical Jewish tradition could be seen as Christianity severing itself from Jewish roots. Replacing the sacred name of God with Lord is a Jewish tradition and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
In the context of your article, how do you feel about statements like, “May God bless us/you.” or “May God help you/us”? I consider these prayers, not taking the name of the Lord in vain.
Do you?
Great question, Sherry. Absolutely not! The priests were commanded to pronounce a blessing in the name of the Lord. And I think the Bible teaches that God empowers Is children to be vehicles of such blessing. I believe we err if we think that phrase or act contains some mystical power in and of itself. Pronouncing blessings on everyone we meet might be as reckless as asking God to do the opposite. Thanks for commenting, Sherry.
I think it doesn’t matter if we say God, damn it, or Yhwh, damn it, the intent is that we want our God to damn something. And that is really not our place, I don’t think. God alone can read hearts, and God alone is holy and able to judge rightly.
I never say “God bless you,” unless I really mean it (never for sneezes) and I agree that asking him to bless someone without thinking about it is as vain as asking him to damn someone when he has not authorized us to do this. I don’t say, “Thank God,” or, “Oh, my God,” unless I really am trying to praise him or pray to him.
I agree that how we act, as we bear his name, can often be a taking of his name in vain.
I don’t believe that reporting that someone else said, “God damn it,” or having a character in my novel saying, “Jesus Christ, Mary, and Joseph,” means I’ve taken God’s name in vain. My character has taken his name in vain, not I. When my character murders, he’s the murderer, not I. When he swears, he’s the one cursing, not I.
The one thing I disagree with in this thread is that the reason it should offend us when someone uses God’s name as a curse is that it means the person is in some kind of trouble and needs help. I think that God’s name is holy and should be held to be holy. Using his name in a flippant manner is sinful and egregious. There was a time when the people didn’t know God’s name and then he gave that name to Moses and now we are to pray for a world where his name is hallowed. That does not just mean where he is respected, but where he is respected so much that no one would dream of reducing his lofty name to a swear word and where no one dream of commanding him to damn or to bless as if he were some personal genie subject to our every whim.
It is sinful and offensive for anyone to use God’s name as a swear word and that should grieve us not because a person needs help, but because our sovereign king who has always done good to us is being treated shabbily.
My father has been gone from this earth for almost 43 years. But if you used his name as an explicative I would still take it quite personally. I do not correct people when they say GD (see I just don’t want to put those two words together) because unlike my father, God does not need me to defend His name. Nor do I consider anyone who uses that phrase automatically profane.
Your thoughts on God not really being His name because the word is generic is a bit flimsy. Of course there are several words used to identify the One true God in the Old Testament. And the word THEOS is the Greek equivalent in the New Testament. But when Paul used the word THEOS to say that “all have come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), I am quite sure that is not a generic use of the term.
So here are my thoughts. If you feel comfortable using that phrase in conversation are writing then go for it. You’ll never here me condemn you for it. At the same time think a long time before implying I am committing the equivalence of sorcery because I can find no freedom from God’s Spirit to use it.
“or” writing not “are”. “hear” not “here”. Good grief.
Tim, most of the time the Bible uses the word “God” it is referencing the Christian God. What others mean by “God” and their relationship to the real one is another story. Also, I too DO NOT “feel comfortable using that phrase in conversation or writing,” and trust you’re not implying I do.
The “you” was generic and did not mean you as in Mike Duran. And don’t worry, I rarely imply things. Generally I either say what I mean or keep my mouth shut.
I was playing Rook the other night with my wife and my mother-in-law (who now lives with us and is suffering from dementia) and I was soundly beaten. I stormed away from the kitchen table in a snit and when my wife chastised me, I said, “GDit leave me alone!” I was floored! I was stunned! I never use those words! But, I am immersed in a culture (the medical field) where my fellow physicians are basically cursing if they are talking. GD, Jesus Christ, MF, you name it. Of course, this is never in front of the patient. But, when you hear all day long, ten straight hours for five days, the words seep into your mind.
My point, I guess, is that for me, refraining from saying these things is not a matter of never using the Lord’s name in vain. It is a matter of being different from the world around me. It is a matter of being consistent. My atheist/skeptic colleagues are looking for the slightest slip up on my part to call me a hypocrite. And, they don’t understand that I am forgiven, not perfect. That means NOTHING to them. For me, it boils down to a matter of consistency. I want to consistently walk in the way of my Lord, my Yahweh, my Jehovah, my Savior, my Christ.
And so, how then should that attitude be carried over into my writing. I know my colleagues read my books. Will they react in the same way to me if I use profanity? Will they still call me a hypocrite? Or, will they accept that in my book it is my “character” speaking and not me? Mike, you’ve raised some interesting questions about this entire area. And, I’m not sure what the answer is. I cringe every time I hear GDit (can’t even write, either) because I know how God would react to me if I showed such blatant disrespect. It is an empathic response and in reality, I’m afraid that if I hear it enough, it will become normal for me to speak it as I related above.
One other thing. The admonition “God bless you” comes from “Jesu, Jose, y Maria” or the “prayer” for anyone sneezing during the Middle Ages. If you sneezed, it meant you had the plague and the only thing that would save you was God!
Ok, not using God’s name in vain is just good manners. I once asked a child, “If every time some stubbed their toe, they yelled out your name would you like it?” The answer was no. God doesn’t like it either.
The Bible teaches us to ‘be careful little mouths what we say’. My characters should too.
As for swearing an Oath, I believe Jesus answered that question clearly.
God bless,
Your characters should be careful what they say? Don’t you have any bad characters who say and do bad things?
agreed, sally, if one is writing reality-fiction. if it’s merely “christian fiction” then of course we must scrub it of all humanity before releasing it to the four corners of … our little world, ’cause it certainly won’t reach the world-at-large with such unrealistic characters …
great post, mike!
So I’m about 10 months late to this conversation, but I just came here seeking some wisdom and fell in love with this comment b/c I am writing REALITY Christian Fiction, full of humanity and depravity and physical desire etc. . . My struggle is that in an effort to not turn readers off (if the reality of our physical nature doesn’t do that in the first place), I am wondering where to draw the line on this matter. I am totally loving this thread and learning so much!
I don’t think anyone here is granting license for profanity or saying JC! or GD! is perfectly acceptable. But recognizing a thing isn’t the same as relishing in it, and thing have to be put in perspective.
Seriously – there’s a shocking lack of proportion on display if folks can’t see past fictitious dialogue, or imply that Mike somehow sinned by pasting a portion of dubious language.
I mean if you want to be indignant look at Amnesty International, or Voice of the Martyrs or Google child slavery and sex trafficking. Read Alan Oathout’s reply in the Porcupine thread and think for 5 seconds about those kids he mentions. Those are worthy of genuine outrage.
Unfortunately, its easier to lob hand grenades of criticism at paper targets than to actually get up and be angry and active in something that really matters.
I’m all for not swallowing bugs but this really is a case of straining gnats and swallowing camels.
Patrick, I agree about fictional characters speaking and I agree about the horrors in the real world that should offend us. Still, I don’t think it’s fair to assume that people who object to Christian writers allowing their characters to use God’s name as a curse word are people who aren’t outraged over sex trafficking. It’s possible to hate more than one thing at a time. It’s not like all they do all day is complain about cursing in books. Mike brought up the subject, they are giving their opinions just as you and I are. They probably hate the evils in the world just as much as we do.
You’re right. I didn’t mean it to sound that way. It’s just that from the comments here and in other place where I’ve engaged in this same debate, the language and tone is far too severe and reactionary, and there seems to be little sense of proportion in their logic.
I think it was Rob Bell who said “Some people are itching for a fight because they aren’t in one.” I’m not trying to justify gratuitous profanity but I don’t think this topic is worth one quarter of the effort expended on it.
Mike, out of curiosity – which topics on your blog see the most traffic and have the most traction among your visitors?
As a Mennonite I believe a lot of things about “taking God’s name in Vain” that don’t seem to fit the current thought on the subject. I never swear any kind of oath at all. Whenever I’ve testified in court I always affirm my statement.
I personally will use words that are what my mom used to call “barnyard language” on occasion because I like the feel of them and in certain situations only the Ess Word will do. But I will never ever say G-d or Jesus Christ in any kind of exclamatory way. And I would certainly never call down the power of God’s blessings or damnation in a frivolous manner. That is out of respect for God and a sense of humility.
But there are other things that I believe–along with other Mennonites–to be taking the Lord’s name in vain that other branches of Christianity don’t agree upon.
1. Calling someone “Reverend”. We believe that God is the only entity to be _revered_. By calling someone “Reverend” it takes that revered status of God and turns it into vanity. People liken themselves to God by claiming the title of Reverend. Now I get that a lot of folks are offended by this idea and so I don’t talk about it a lot. But I will always consider “Reverend” as one of the things that takes the name of the Lord in vain.
2. Claiming Christianity to sell things. This includes stuff like putting a fish sign on your business card or next to your business name in the phone book. It also includes joining a church to make contacts for your MLM business. Or starting a church to get rich. Or claiming to be a Christian so that your novel will get published, Anne Rice.
3. Doing anything in your guise as a Christian that makes a mockery of God. This is a wide open thing, and most of us have done it at one time or another.
Thinking of mere words as a sort of magic spell of wrongness is verging on the practice of Black Magic. While it’s a good idea to avoid certain phrases unless you truly mean them (i.e. God Bless You) the Lord means so much more with that commandment. As with every other commandment it is a code of conduct, not a code of speech.
One thing I truly admire about you, Katherine, is your consistency. My father was a Southern Baptist pastor but steadfastly refused to allow people to call him Reverend. As to using the name of Christ to market oneself I heartily recommend Bill Meyer’s new novel, The Judas Gospel.
Thank you, I think….There is always that “hobgoblin of little minds” thing to contend with, but since I don’t think my consistencies are always that foolish I might be okay. My dad raised me to be as consistent as possible. “A belief isn’t worth a thing if you don’t act upon it in every instance.” He’s a lawyer–a Godly one– who spends much of his life talking Christians out of suing one another.
I do think the whole Reverend Taboo is a generally Anabaptist thing, as I don’t know many Baptists who use that appellation…or didn’t until I moved to Nashville where there are a few who are fond of it.
You are the third or fourth person to recommend Judas Gospel so I reckon I better take a gander at it.
Good post, Mike. I totally agree with you.
I just thought of something else that bothers me, which I am most likely to see in comments to articles or blog entries. (No, not this one, Mike!)
Anyway, I loathe seeing “god” in lower case, which as much as signals that the writer is an atheist or at best an agnostic. I want to pray for them because of their tragic disbelief.
It also offends me. It’s so discourteous to lowercase God’s name when they wouldn’t do so with the name of a political figure they disagree with them. Or even a criminal convicted of the most heinous crimes.
Or…. could taking the Lord’s name in vain mean to speak on behalf of Yahweh and say something for him (take his name) when he has not said so. The Hebrew can mean “you should not carry/take the name of Yahweh your God [to a false/vain/empty — infinitive construct with lamed preposition on shua].” This has a lot of implications for preachers, doesn’t it!
In other words, as I understand it, being a false prophet.
Camping comes to mind, as does Phelps.
You have definitely given me some things to think about. Good post 🙂
First, I agree with you that the third commandment is much broader than what many tend to think of it, including using it in oaths that you might not fulfill, or in one’s Christian witness in a overarching hypocritical sense.
That said, I don’t think it excludes the use involved in taking the actual name in vain in word.
First, while I certainly understand that God is a substitute for His true name, no matter the reason or history on it being substituted, for English speaking Christians, that is His name. When we say “God” we’re speaking of no one else other than Jehovah. So for us, that is His name or the equivalent thereof. So I don’t agree that it can be dismissed on those grounds.
Two, the idea that using it in a string of words being wrong is the same as pagan superstition. Maybe some Christians treat it that way, but when someone is saying GD, they are not reciting a spell, or expecting to cause God to act, if they use it without really meaning to address God.
Taking God’s name in vain is anytime you use His name without intending to speak about God. IOW, it is taking God’s name in vain to say GD if in fact it is just an explicative, or you are not addressing God to do something. It is also in vain if you are intending God to damn something or someone, and God has not told you to do that. It is not that one is using it as some sort of spell as your examples would indicate, but because you say God’s name but either aren’t talking to Him or meaning to, or you do mean to but God hasn’t told you to say that in His behalf, then you have used His name in a vain way in either case. It has nothing to do with superstition or pagan ideas.
So I would disagree that because it does speak to a broader set of actions or lack thereof, does not mean it nullifies the generally understood concept. Using His name in vain either by “praying” to Him without meaning to or doing something in His name He didn’t authorize is wrong.
Now, I didn’t read the post on Connor, just been too busy lately. But I would agree that you quoting that phrase isn’t automatically damming on you. Nor would I think it reflects on an author’s Christianity if they have a character that does so. I know I could never go there, though maybe one day I’ll be in a situation where it would. But I’ll deal with that if it ever arises. And I’m not likely to read a book laced with such, because I can’t take it.
And for the record, if I say, “God bless you” when someone sneezes or any other time, I mean it and so don’t see it as taking God’s name in vain. And it is certainly a good thing to ask God to do for them, I’m sure God likes blessing people, whereas He would rather not damn them, so asking Him for that isn’t a standing order on His part, whereas blessings would be.
And I guess that’s the point. If you are addressing God when using His name, all’s well and good. What you are asking He do may be an issue and might reflect on your witness, and be a form of vainness, but if you use His name but don’t intend to address Him, especially if used in a derogatory sense as most cussing is used, then it degrades who He is in the eyes of the person. But I agree with your points that we need to realize it is much broader than simply cussing.
When I first read about “God” not being a name, it got me to think. And lately, a Wiccan friend of mine who has a tendency to cuss, when I gave him a look when he did say it, he told me that when he says g-d-it, he’s actually cursing his own gods, not YHWH, which surprised me a bit. Maybe whenever someone says it, one should ask “Which one are you referring to?”