Wayne Grudem Emails Piper on Potty Mouth
For those who saw the statement from Piper and his little slip at Passion you can now find an email message to Piper from Grudem on the issue.
An excerpt:
A number of different words can denote the same thing but have different connotations, some of them recognized as “unclean” or “offensive” by the culture.
Examples:
- urination: taking a leak, pee, “p—”
- defication: poop, “cr–”, “sh–”
- sexual intercourse: sleeping with someone, “f—”
- rear end: backside, “a–”
January 15th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Piper’s rebuttal:
“Providence guys, just providence.”
January 15th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Well, hate to drag this one out, but…
First, let me say that i highly respect Grudem and think his “Systematic Theology” text is the best all around work of its type. I recommend it to anyone. As a side note, Piper himself offers a glowing recommendation on the back cover. But i also disagree with him frequently and think he misses obvious points, as in this case. The scriptures quoted speak more to subject matter than to specific words, more to the attitude of the heart and how it is displayed than to the phrasing that is used- certainly not a slam-dunk against curse words. And as long as he is asking, Malachi 2:3 seems more offensive in subject and specific words used, although i have done no in-depth historical-critical study on the Hebrew for dung.
January 15th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Wow, what a mess. I mean, I do understand that men in Piper’s position are held to a high standard, and I certain appreciate his response. But I agree with Mark that getting hung up on words is stupid and misses the point.
Thanks for the post. I linked to you in my blog on the same subject.
–Josh
January 15th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I agree Mark on all accounts, I appreciate Grudem (both his theology and his praxis, ex. how he ended up in Phoenix in the first place. But this seems a bit odd.
Very specifically what “culture” does Grudem envision taking offense to “pi–”? Or “sh–” for that matter? The only “culture” I can think of that finds offense in these are some subset of our Christian (maybe more specifically, evangelical) culture. So I wonder if we should even accept his beginning premise. Oh well…
January 15th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Ha! Sorry Jason, I didn’t mean that you were being trivial, just that Piper’s choice of words seems fairly insignificant in the scheme of things. However, I still thought it was worthy of a lengthy blog post, so read into that as you please…
Thanks again for the post!
–Josh