This isn't actually all that much of a post, but I did want to refer you to some reading.

So anyway, this thing is mostly about female modesty, but it is mentioned that guys should be modest too. I believe that. It is a somewhat different affair, but worth remembering.

Anyway, here's the thing. Pastor Tollefson preached on Proverbs 7 a couple of weeks ago and I think that reminded me of seeing this mentioned on Covenant Eyes' blog and going to check it out. It's The Rebelution's Modesty Survey.

The Modesty Survey is an anonymous discussion between Christian guys and girls who care about modesty. Hundreds of Christian girls submitted their questions and over 1,600 Christian guys (of all ages) submitted 150,000+ answers—including over 25,000 text responses.

source

I think sometimes it bugs me when people give these general, Sunday school, perfect summary answers to spiritual questions. Yeah, those are good, and sometimes they are helpful. But sometimes specifics are a lot more helpful and maybe more personable. I like the Modesty Survey because it some of both. Some good general answers about Christian modesty and some very specific questions. I have to admit it was somewhat disturbing how specific some of the questions are and what they might make you think about. But, as Christians, keep your mind out of the gutter.

I think it's a good read / browse-through for guys and girls, I think. It might give some insights to the female side and let guys see what a sampling of other guys think about all this stuff, maybe learn that they might be thinking about the issue wrongly, or see other perspectives on it, or get some good clarification on it, or what you will.

Anyway, I found it interesting. As a technical aside, the questions and answers are loaded up with AJAX, so it's not so easy just to hit up a bunch of links in new tabs for later reading (plus there's often a read more responses link).

P.S. Not to be immodest myself, but…

This is our 100th post.

They weren't all big, intellectual, meaty posts; some were actually a bit trivial. But hey… two people, 100 blog posts, 1 year and 17 days. Not that bad, is it?

And…

…hopefully sometime in the soonish future, there will be a post up about us seeking some new bloggers. Also hopefully in the next few months, I can get a sweet WordPress setup all made and get a proper domain for a broken mold… either abrokenmold.com or abrokenmold.net, I would think. I'm just not digging .org for the name. I'm thinking we can get hosted with the awesome NearlyFreeSpeech.NET. It should be rather affordable with the low traffic I'm expecting (at least at first… if it ever picks up, I'll probably be able to afford some decent fixed price hosting by then).

So I just thought I'd put fingers to keyboard, so to type, since I had a couple thoughts...

(Yes, that was a not-so-subtle parody of Nat's post here.)

-Part 1-

Well, over the course of our vacation/trip, we've been staying at the houses of various friends and relatives (similar to Linux distro-hopping, I daresay) and one of the features that varies between locations is the reading selection. At one of my uncles and aunts' house, they had a number of Frank Peretti books; I've read several of his: The Oath, Hangman's Curse and Nightmare Academy, some from the Cooper series, and also Piercing the Darkness. However, I had not read Monster or House, a book he co-authored with Ted Dekker, nor had I read This Present Darkness, to which Piercing the Darkness is a sequel. They had all three of these books, and I read all three last weekend.

This, I imagine, puts me in a somewhat qualified position to review and comment on Peretti's literary offerings, and that is what I intend to do.

Peretti's books might be generally described as supernatural thrillers; he gives angels, demons, and spiritual warfare a very real place in everyday life. In addition, he provides insight on modernity and culture from a biblical perspective; his plots depict the consequences of fallen human nature in a gripping and lively fashion. His simple and unrefined dialogues and almost over-the-top vivid descriptions combine to create an urgent, driving story.

In Monster, for example, the story begins with a handful of people taking a weekend retreat into the wilderness, but an ongoing thread of perplexing hints and puzzle pieces races through the building tension to form an entire web of intrigue that involves Sasquatches, hair-raising hunts and gruesome deaths, and the ruthless advance of Atheistic science. House deals with a deadly game of manipulation and greed, fueled by fear and Satanism, and ultimately exposes our bondage to Sin in our own hearts, and liberation through Christ and sacrifice.

"Light came into the darkness, but the darkness did not understand it."

This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness vividly depict the struggle of the Remnant against the onslaught of Humanistic (and ultimately Satanistic) agendas, power struggles for the education system, government, and even entire towns. But beyond this superficial picture, the awesome conflict between angels and demons, good against evil, is beautifully portrayed. These books are a powerful testament to the efficacy of prayer, with the prayers of the saints providing "prayer cover" for angels to carry out maneuvers, and strength to meet demons in battle. Finally, the assurance that shouts so gloriously from the pages is that God IS ultimately in control, and "light will always pierce the darkness." Shades of C.S. Lewis's deeper magic. I get goosebumps.

So, as the angels say, "For the saints of God and for the Lamb!"

-Part 2-

Now, a bit on mewithoutYou (mentioned of course in many previous posts), arguably my favorite band. To be perfectly honest, my estimation of mwY may have been somewhat lowered by what I've recently learned. Then again, maybe I've just *altered* my preconceptions, while still holding their work in the same esteem. I think that really is the key word-- preconceptions. Not to flood this post with C.S. Lewis references or anything, but I think there is something to be said for his (if somewhat Universalist) account in The Last Battle of the dialogue between Aslan and Emeth (a Calormene), where Aslan explains that, while Emeth thought he had been worshipping Tash, he had in fact been serving Aslan, "For I and he [Tash] are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him." Okay, so it isn't just Lewis's idea either... maybe that's what Paul was getting at in the Areopagus, eh?

The point I'm trying to pose for consideration is the possibility that, despite maybe not holding the correct understanding/belief of Scripture, it is still possible to worship and obey the one true God. That does seem to be validated by Paul's speech. Of course, you don't yet know what I'm referring to, do you? Sorry...

*deep breath*

Well, being on vacation and all, I was able to take some time to do a bit more research on mwY, the band philosophy and background, etc. And I came across a few things that I found a bit unsettling. First there's the fact that their lyrics and philosophy are influenced by Sufi Islam teachings (Aaron was raised in a Sufi household before he converted to Christianity; his father converted from Judaism and his mother from Episcopalian). Then again, it isn't as if such beliefs are *necessarily* in contradiction with a Christian aesthetic. However, it does indicate to me that they aren't on the page I thought they were, at least not nominally, and sometimes nominally can be important. More on that later. Next, I found a couple of interviews with lead vocalist Aaron Weiss found here and here. From the first interview, we find this excerpt:

It’s not like I’m offended if someone says we’re a Christian band. I just don’t think it’s true. I don’t think we live up to that calling, so I’d be reluctant to go saying that, and God knows the truth. Our hearts are very far from Jesus.

Now that concerns me somewhat. However, if you take that in perspective with their lyrics, what do you end up with? They certainly don't seem "far from Jesus" in the many references to Jesus in their songs and the story that they tell. Eh. Hmm.

From the second interview:

I'm trying to understand the Bible, and um, but I definitely don't put it on the same pedestal that I used to. You know, where I'd say, "this is the word of God that I'm holding in my hand and this is infallible and perfect, and there's no contradictions and is scientifically accurate," and all the rest...

And then he goes on to point out reasons he now regards it as more of collection of holy Jewish stories and poems. In this list he cites various "inconsistencies," and how he just wasn't convinced by efforts to sustain their validity. I'm glad, however, to see that he goes on to say, "There's just some things that I pray to God to guide me in the right way and to guide me to the truth in the best way." He's evaluating things that the Bible says by what is written on his conscience, and I hope God will grow him that way.

So, to conclude, I want to express a few final thoughts about the worship/worldview issue. Looking at Romans 1, we seem to find another indicator of God's natural revelation and the potential to worship Him with the knowledge given. Is one absolutely required to have received the gospel to be included in God's kingdom? I hope not... what about those far-flung tribes who have lived for centuries "without excuse"? Then again, I do think it's important to claim the name of Christ if you've received the gospel. I don't know how that all works out... I realize this is sort of a whole different topic, but it is one that pertains directly to the subject at hand, so I'm trying just to briefly set up a framework. C.S. Lewis (last reference, I promise), in Pilgrim's Regress, outlines such a model, where he describes the heathens as being given a "picture" of "Sweet Desire" by God, and in striving towards that, they were living by His law. The Christians in Puritania, however, have the law without the picture. At any rate, I think it does make sense.

However it may be, I love the poetry and passion of mewithoutYou and believe their theme is in worship to God, and I certainly pray for them and hope to see them in Heaven. Can't wait to listen to It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright when I get home in a week or so.

Bonus material: check out http://improveverywhere.com. Hilarious stuff, but language disclaimer.

-Matthew

Since I wrote my last post about this, I read some stuff and thought somewhat shortly after the post about writing another one, but never did.

However, I don't remember exactly what it was that I read for sure, so I'll talk about what I've been thinking about recently.

Last time, I talked about three types of 'bad language' (and that is such a wide phrase to mean something much narrower): profanity, obscenity, and cursing, the last of which may bleed into the first two. Like I said before, profanity is disrespecting the sacred with language, obscenity is making that seen which should not be seen (vulgar; it comes from Latin meaning "the common people", which is where such things should not be talked about; they are out of context), and cursing is calling, wishing, or commanding something bad or evil upon a person or thing.

I must say that I have already become somewhat numbed to some offensive language; I see and hear it enough that it begins to bother me less. And that seems a bad thing.

The thing with this group of 'bad language' I call offensive is that it is offensive. Nobody likes pooh in their face for real, so why would they like it in their face with words? Sexuality is meant for marriage, and there is a shame in bantering about it in a public and common manner; thus comes the offensiveness of such words. Furthermore, who likes to be cursed? Do we really have the right to proclaim such things upon people anyway?

Now, this is not to say that every time these words appear in print or are spoken that it is evil. I mentioned before the dynamic nature of language and also the intent of the heart. These both come into play. Not always when people say "damn" are they cursing someone. Not always will people consider words to mean the same thing. Different things are offensive in different cultures.

It seems to be one of those Christian liberty things and one we should be very careful with. These words obviously carry some meaning that at least to some, is offensive or evil. Some seem to me to be universally evil; these would be those that profane that which should always be sacred (such as God's name), and those things that should not be seen by those they are communicated to (such as talking about sex in a dirty way). If we are to be different from the world, and these are the worlds vulgarities, some explicitly wrong, some not loving to our neighbor, shouldn't we not use such language?

Don't get me wrong; I am not declaring this group of words absolutely evil, but I think as Christians we need to be careful and discerning in this area; for some of us, perhaps it is better to forego them completely as we can, for others it may not be so. Using any words to intentionally and maliciously hurt others is obviously wrong, so let us keep that in mind.

I personally steer clear of common words considered offensive ('swear words', obscenity, profanity) in my speech, because it seems safer to me, and there are other words in this language to express my feelings. Don't let me dictate how to live your Christian life, though; that is the job of God's word, so pick it up and read.

Alright, I know. I opened a can of worms just by saying that. But I'm prepared to put them on the hook.

I wanted to blog about this a while back. In fact, what started it all was me asking (or was it telling) a friend (OK… an internet friend) was cussing on IM. And he said 'why?' So that got me Googling on it, which dug up… previous cans of worms. Specifically, some of the stuff I turned up, for reference:

Grudem and Piper on Profanity :: :: A Reformed, Christian Blog
constantly..in need of grace...: Glorious Biblical Profanity
Profanity and Christianity « JP’s Mind

And that post, by the way, was when I ran into JP's Mind, in case you ever noticed the link to it on the blog.

So, the argument rages on.
"Swearing is wrong."
"It's the only way I can adequately express myself."
"Hey, even Paul used profanity."

Each argument, each opinion, we could follow on a network of its own, but this is what I have to say. It's not about walking the line. Something I have learned is that righteousness isn't a line; it's a direction. That being said, we would want to be walking in righteousness. Which brings us back to the question, does profanity belong on the road of righteousness?

I see this is going to get a little more involved…

First, we have to know what profanity is. The Encarta® World English Dictionary (eh, it's on my laptop) defines the verb transitive as "to treat something sacred with disrespect." Using God's name as a swear word would fall under this description, I think. The other word that comes to my mind is obscenity. And what is an obscenity? Merely something that you are not supposed to see. So when we make things that should not be seen visible, it's an obscenity. What's not supposed to be seen? Check the Bible for answers on that one. One other angle we might hit on is the word cursing. Wishing or commanding something bad on someone. Really, we can't do that except what we ourselves would do or influence others to do. Still, I don't have as good a handle on this one. In the back of my mind, it seems I remember someone saying when we curse, it does have an effect. Maybe I should ask around.

Anyway, neither profaning things nor making visible that which should not be sounds like something Christians should be doing. When it comes down to that, it's easy. The answer is, it's wrong.

Really, the whole thing revolves around three things in my opinion: the dynamic nature of language, the intent of the heart, and stumbling blocks.

So, we should first realize the dynamic nature of language. Some of the things we say today that don't seem offensive at all might have been highly offensive 200 years ago. Language changes. Definitions change. Keep that in mind. But also keep in mind, God was holy 200 years ago, and he still is. Respect his name. Also, what was obscene 200 years ago is still obscene today, though our culture seeks to define it as acceptable.

Secondly, the intent of the heart; it can be good or evil. If you say "son of mutton chop" but mean "son of a ***" in your heart, that's wrong. That's not to say we can't express anger. I was reading something in my Googling that said it well (indirect quote, click for original): 'When I say "Damn!" after hitting my thumb with a hammer, it doesn't mean I'm calling down eternal damnation on the hammer. It means "ouch!"' In that situation, the intent of the heart isn't cursing somebody, it's saying "I hurt!" Or "I'm annoyed!" On a personal level, this seems agreeable, but I think it could be a stumbling block, and people could also get the wrong idea if you're saying "Oh ***!" every time something irks you.

Back to the stumbling block. I think a person can be a stumbling block in two ways: by doing something that is definitely Biblically wrong (which might encourage others to do the same, both those who know it to be against God's law and those who don't), and by doing something that would violate the conscience of a brother or sister in Christ (in their presence, or such), e.g., Delbert believes it's wrong to eat hamburgers, and Bob walks into the break room with a quarter pounder, plops down beside him, and starts chomping away (to take it a little further… Bob: "Oh, hey, Delbert, man, you gotta try this. Oh, yeah, I know you don't believe in hamburgers, but one little bite won't hurt. C'mon man, yur missin' out!").

Alright, I think I've gotten my thoughts expressed. I welcome yours.