Doug the Cussing Pastor: Is it Salt or a Chili Pepper?
/
In the recent back-and-forth between Kevin DeYoung and Doug Wilson, DeYoung raised the topic of Wilson's cussing in an article titled "On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood." DeYoung linked to a few highly graphic examples, some of which are king of the socially unacceptable mountain. (See the lengthy list of words in the fourth paragraph of the "Mood is the Message" section of DeYong's critique.) Then DeYoung states what's most on this pastor's mind, writing,
"Were I to use these words in public (or in private) I would be quickly confronted by my elders and likely brought before my presbytery for questioning. If I persisted, I would probably be deposed as a minister. And rightly so, for such language constitutes filthiness, foolish talk, and crude joking (Eph. 5:4). Which of the Puritans, or Southern Presbyterians for that matter, would have dared to speak this way? What candidate coming forward for ordination could get away with writing in this way? What parent would be thrilled if their daughter's new boyfriend sprinkled his vocabulary with words like these? If such "prophetic" language is justified for the minister when he is attacking a godless culture, is the language therefore appropriate in the pulpit?"
While all of DeYoung's questions on this matter are reasonable, the most crucial question is how Wilson's use of crass words (many of a sexually immoral nature) measures up against Ephesians 5:1-5.
Wilson responded to DeYoung's critique. Both men have made interesting arguments and done so in reasonable ways, except for Wilson's response to this question. (See his response starting at minute 19:34 of the YouTube video titled, "My Rejoiner to Kevin Deyong | Doug Wilson.")
To address the use of foul language that goes against Ephesians 5:1-5, Wilson started with a brief lesson on the tu quoque fallacy, explaining that one can't handle a claim of wrongdoing by stating the other guy also does it. That doesn't make it less wrong. Wilson says, "This is a fallacy of deflection and an attempt to change the subject." Then Wilson says he's not doing that while pointing out that The Gospel Coalition (of which DeYoung is a part) reviews movies with these same words in them and, if I understand his argument, also uses the same words in the actual reviews. According to Wilson, he's not deploying the tu quoque fallacy because Wilson's "use of hot sauce language is completely different than the use commended by multiple TCG movie reviews." Wilson shifted the focus from his use of the words to the purpose of the words. Then he quotes three Scriptures about judging by the same standards--Matthew 7:2, Romans 2:3, and Galatians 6:1. However, so far, all he's done is bring TCG under the same question but hasn't addressed it for himself. That's not the issue. He still has not answered how he (and now TGC) stack up against Ephesians 5:1-5.
He continued this distraction for a few minutes by taking more digs at DeYoung and TGC's use of language before he finally turned the objective back to himself. Wilson goes back to a piece of writing where he used what might be the most egregious of all cuss words (the c-word) and claimed he'd write every syllable again and defend it as a stand for righteousness. He doesn't deny using the foul language as DeYoung claimed; he celebrates it. But still, what answer will he give in light of Ephesians 5:1-5?
Then Wilson claimed that people overlook the entire argument of that past article because it contains one foul word. He attacked the reader, saying that focusing on the naughty word can score easy points and avoid the article's argument. It's the reader's fault! Then he again turned it back on DeYoung and Justin Taylor because they are hypocrites. If all of that were not enough distraction and deflection, Wilson took a page out of Big-Eva's playbook and then said something to the effect that it's okay he uses these cuss words because he also includes a gospel message in his writing. (The assumption is we can do whatever we want if there's a gospel purpose.) All of this (and it's a lot) may or may not be true, but the original critique and question is about using words that violate Ephesians 5:1-5. Not the purpose of how these words are used. Not what those words may or may not be doing in an article. Not who else Wilson is joining by using the words. Not the hypocrisy of those who raised the issue of Wilson's use of filthy words. Not whether or not Wilson presented the gospel. How are we to think about this behavior if Christians are called to be imitators of God, avoiding sexuality immorality, qualified by Ephesians 5:4, which says, "Obecene and foolish talking or crude joking are not suitable"?
Finally, Douglas Wilson turned to Scripture to make his point. Would he appeal to Galatians 5:12? Or maybe Ezekiel 23:20? Wilson said, "Keep this principle in mind: The Apostle Paul said that we are to have our speech be gracious, seasoned with the occasional red-hot chili pepper, Colossians 4:6." He went on to say that in his cooking of millions of words, he has on occasion, deliberately put in a red-hot one to be obedient to God. Then he said, "The way I use it, the pepper is not a sin." How so? Because, he argues, it's not a sin if the foul language is being deployed righteously.
What might be a sin is the egregious way he twisted the Word of God with Colossians 4:6 to defend himself from Ephesians 5:4.
Is Doug Wilson using obscene and foolish talking or crude joking based on a command of Colossians 4:6? That appears to be his line of thinking. Is he engaging in sexually immoral or impure behavior with his language? He seems to say he is indeed. Rather than responding with an interpretation of Ephesians 5:4 and answering the question with his understanding of that verse, he instead changed the meaning of Colossians 4:6 to give himself a free pass.
Wilson said the principle of Colossians 4:6 is to have gracious language that's occasionally seasoned with a red-hot chili pepper. The context of his entire argument suggests that red-hot chili peppers are the most offensive and foul words in a society's language. But that's not what Colossians 4:6 says.
"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person" (Colossians 4:6, ESV). The CSB and NET are identical, except "ought" is rendered "should." The NKJV is the same as the ESV, except "gracious" is rendered "with grace." The LSB (promoted by John MacArthur) is the same other than "speech," which the LSB translates as "words." Nearly every English translation of this verse is the same in meaning, with only very minor differences in word choices. But none of them translate halas (salt) as "red-hot chili pepper." Nearly every translation uses a comma between the first and second clauses, likely indicating that the second clause further explains how the speech should be gracious. Doug Wilson's translation seems to allow for the occasional exception to gracious speech and with something different than salt.
Reading the Greek clause, "seasoned with salt" either means that the speech is always with grace AND seasoned with salt, or always with grace BECAUSE it is seasoned with salt. There's no way to render a contrast here. It's not that the speech should be gracious, BUT at times, be different, even if rarely. That goes against the "always" in the verse and the point of the statement. Either way, speech is always to be gracious. The purpose of the salt might be up for debate, but it's an overreach to say it means spicy, offensive, foul, sexually immoral language to strengthen an argument and get in a jet-fueled gospel share. Mark 9:50's use of salt doesn't lead to that conclusion either. It says, "Salt is good, but if the salt should lose its flavor, how can you season it? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with one another." Much of the language in question is not gracious, nor does it bring believers peace with one another.
Furthermore, misrendering Colossians 4:6 will only get obscene and foolish language off the hook if the red-hot chili pepper principle is true. It's not. Therefore, Wilson didn't answer the meaningful question. I believe this is where Wilson needs to get more honest and solid in his response to the question. I hope he takes a second swing at this part. I think it would greatly benefit his writing, arguments, and gospel sharing if Wilson avoided the pitfall of inviting his readers to miss the argument and gospel sharing because he allowed an obvious distraction to get in the way. Why put in this unnecessary spice that's not part of the main dish only to have the entire plate returned to the kitchen, which he concluded keeps happening?
I greatly appreciated the rest of Doug Willson's response to Kevin DeYoung's critique, which I also appreciate. This public conversation is an interesting and helpful discussion, especially for pastors working week in and week out in small churches nationwide. Based on Wilson's explanation about how these kinds of discussions are supposed to go, I'm nervous someone from Moscow or a Moscow fan will turn a blowtorch on me, but I am still open to Wilson's point about discourse. Doug, I have a podcast called "Salty Believer Unscripted" (which you've been a guest on twice). I'd be happy to have you on again as a guest to discuss alternative ways to use language so as not to cause such an unfortunate distraction. I believe you are skilled and creative enough to do that very thing. The best art comes when artists self-impose limits. And there's more to this than your use of red-hot chili peppers or your disagreement with Kevin and TGC. A lot more is at stake. Many young pastors try to emulate your style or words only to destroy their ability to do good ministry work. I am appealing to you primarily for the sake of all those who mirror what you are doing but have no idea why or how you do it. While you may not believe the language in question is problematic for you, it is causing ministry consequences you may not see but could prevent.
(Okay, let me get my fire suit on while someone lights up the flamethrower.)
