Monday, June 11, 2018

What Constitutes "Crude Joking"?


One of the passages that was used to critique Wood, Malone, and McCray is Ephesians 5:4, which reads “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.” From the responses to Wood that I’ve seen, this verse has been applied specifically to two videos.  First is his video on the proper way to urinate in Islam, and secondly on the infamous breastfeeding video.  But does this passage address either of those?

One big problem that I have seen is that very few people are taking the time to actually define what “crude joking” would entail.  Dr. White used the definition of “vulgar speech, and indecent talk” when discussing it in his second video (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hSIA0hzMwk&feature=youtu.be&t=58m35s).  The problem is that this simply moves the question back a step: What constitutes “vulgar speech” or “indecent talk”?  Unfortunately, Dr. White does not go into details on this.  Instead, he transitions immediately into the pragmatism discussion and takes for granted that everyone agrees with him what is vulgar and what is indecent.

Here’s the problem.  Is the vulgar defined culturally, or is it defined Biblically?  Is indecency defined culturally or Biblically?  I would argue that it cannot be defined culturally, and here’s proof: I do not find any of the videos to be vulgar or indecent.  I do not say this to be polemical, I say this because it’s my honest assessment.  Can you prove me wrong?

If you just assert, “Well, to me they are vulgar”, then I’m going to continue to assert, “To me, they are not.”  Who wins this?  Why should I subject my standards to your opinion?

So clearly we need an objective arbiter here, and that is Scripture.  So let me ask the question that matters: Would the Bible find these videos to be vulgar or indecent?

Let us consider the first one, the urination video.  1 Kings 18:27 answers this plainly: “And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god.  Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’”  Note the key bolded words.  Elijah mocked using bathroom humor about bodily functions.  In fact, the expressions being used there is actually more vulgar than is typically translated.  So I do not think the urination video would be considered “vulgar speech” or “indecent talk” even when used in mockery, under Biblical standards.

But what of the breastfeeding video?  Well, let us actually dig into this and ask why this video would be offensive.  Is it immoral to breastfeed?  Clearly not.  Children do it all the time.  Ah, but perhaps it is immoral for adult men to breastfeed.  Except there is no prohibition against it in the Scripture.

In fact, the Bible has no problem referencing breasts.  Look at Proverbs 5:19 (“Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight”).  More than that, consider Isaiah 66:10-11: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her; that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance.”

In light of this, how can one be Biblically consistent in claiming that the two most objected-to videos Wood has produced are vulgar or indecent, when the Bible uses the same language?

Consistency is important, and it goes both ways.  Please, show me from the Scripture (allowing Scripture to define its terms) where the videos actually violate the precepts we find there.  If you want to be consistent, please show me the exact link to morality that your moral compass has, so we can see whether or not the offense you see comes from your culture or from the Bible itself.  Absent this, we are imposing extra-biblical rules and regulations upon fellow believers.  And that, my brothers and sisters, violates Romans 14:4.

29 comments:

  1. In a certain respect the Islamicize Me series of videos have elicited the reactions they were intended to elicit. For example, we already witness how upset people are at the depiction of grown men implicitly breastfeeding. However, the problem is people have misdirected their ire. They're blaming Wood, Malone, and McCray rather than Muhammad and Islam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Epistle of Dude -
      Wow. You just hit the nail on the head with that one. Boom!

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Ken! I'd like to think so, but I'm biased. ;)

      Delete
    3. Yup - and misdirected anger can be a sin in itself. One must be very careful before assuming the moral high ground, and have really good reasons to do so. White doesn't.

      Delete
  2. What would constitute crude joking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is the question. Can you condemn someone as being crude if you do not know what constitutes crude behavior? So, if you say the videos are crude, demonstrate how. That's my point.

      Delete
  3. This post seems to be a bit too clever by half by not actually defining what would cross a line biblically. And wouldn't there be a difference if Wood wanted to discuss the behavior in the hadith vs acting it out? Elijah didn't pretend to go to the bathroom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the contrary, my post is exactly as clever as I'm intending it to be. I want people to actually think and consider the question.

      So let's consider yours. Is there a difference between discussing behavior in a mocking manner and implying it through actions? I say "implying it" because in neither video did they actually do either of the behaviors. They poured apple juice through a squeeze bottle in one, and they put cream on their lips in the other. So, would that be a violation of the commands?

      This is a legitimate question. I'm not the one saying it would be immoral, and I don't hold to the default position that it is ipso facto crude. So convince me.

      Delete
  4. Look, let me be as crystal clear as possible here on the intent of this post. If you are going to condemn a fellow brother in the Lord for something, ought you not be able to demonstrate why that condemnation is just? And if you are going to use a passage of Scripture as your justification for condemning a fellow believer or accusing him of sin, should you not be able to demonstrate clearly how that charge actually applies? If you cannot trace a consistent definition back to foundational precepts in the Scripture, then what sort of hubris are you displaying to assert your own relativistic morality as being the standard by which you are judging?

    I did not make positive assertions that someone violated the precepts of Scripture in regards to the original video. Those who are making those positive assertions have a burden of proof to actually establish it. This is important. It's not just an internet flame war--this is accusations of improper and immoral behavior being lobbed about.

    I am making the charge that those who are not backing up their claims are violating Romans 14:4, and I will be consistent. Romans 14:4 begins: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls." Our master is God, and His precepts are revealed by Scripture. If we want to know if we stand or fall before our master, we base it on Scripture. That is the grounding for my claim that if one does not ground a charge against a brother fimrly in Scripture, then one is violating the precept established here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lets talk about cultural sensitivities: is it acceptable for men and women to walk naked? Not in our culture, or most cultures, but there are aboriginal communities who do just that - and its normal behavior for them. They are culturally desensitized to it. The point is not whether this is morally right or not (that is a different question to ask) but that cultural sensitivities (or the lack thereof) are real.

      I suspect a similar cultural problem with White's aversion to the series. He is extremely sensitive on this matter. He finds the very visual implication of adult men being breastfed or the depiction of urinating - filthy - but is his aversion from the culture he comes from or his ministry to Muslims (Not offending them. Many of his Muslim friends will be offended by these videos so that does affect White in turn). Or, as you pointed out - does it come from scripture, as it should. To my knowledge, James has still not produced a verse condemning the use of satire (which by definition engage in exaggeration for shock value) by Christians.

      The plain meaning of the text suggests vulgar jokes one may joke about like in the popular culture.

      The verse itself is: " Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving." This verse does not address satire (like that of Elijah) done in the honour of God (cf. 1 Cor 10:31) or the mocking of bad beliefs, but crude joking which are, "out of place" or "out of character" or "unfitting". Is satire done with the ultimate aim to bring people to God "unfitting", "out-of-place"? How? There is nothing in the text that would suggest associating satire with crude/coarse joking. The verse to me implies not sharing sex jokes like is done in popular culture, or something similar.

      To grant White his interpretation in terms of his objection to ridiculing false set of beliefs (in other words, doing a so-called bad thing (crude jesting) for a good reason (critiquing false belief) - he must first show that this crude jesting is the same as the use of satire approved by God in the past in scripture. I don't see how they are same, because A. one is done for the glory of God (satire) and another to entertain oneself (crude jesting) and B. because the very beliefs David is mocking has crudeness in it - so if he engages in satire, the result by definition will be crude. It is inescapable, and the only way to avoid this would be to avoid satire itself - hence White must show us from scripture that satire is not suitable for Christians.

      Delete
    2. The clue to White's hyper cultural sensitivities is his objection to some other videos. The breastfeeding video probably is borderline - but the videos on puking or urinating is not. I did not find them "offensive" at all. But he does. That strongly suggests his cultural sensitivity or my lack there of or both. Whatever it is, it is cultural.

      Delete
    3. I suspect this is cultural for another reason too. Namely, the idea of consuming breast milk itself is what most people seem to find revolting. Why do I say that? Look at videos on YouTube about ice cream made from breast milk. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zT6oPeV6YQ (it's a news story so no nudity in there either).

      There is clearly a reaction people have when they are told to try human breast milk derived ice cream. Yet human breast milk is specifically designed by God for humans (albeit typically infants), while the same people who have qualms of it have no problem with drinking milk was designed to help a calf grow...

      If you have the same reaction to the breast milk ice cream that you do to Wood's video (which wasn't even using breast milk, but instead cream from cow's milk), then the "ick" factor is clearly from the psychological concept of consuming human breast milk itself.

      Delete
    4. That is a good point, Peter.

      Delete
  5. Just two quick points for now:

    1. I think what White is doing is illogically inferring if there's sexual humor, then it's "crude joking" and therefore immoral per Eph 5:4.

    However, while "crude joking" can contain sexual humor, not all sexual humor is "crude joking". Otherwise I know several new Christian mothers who would be sinning thanks to their breastfeeding related jokes, their jokes about not being able to have good sex with their husbands after giving birth, jokes involving oxytocin being a letdown, and so on.

    2. In addition to the biblical verses and passages Peter Pike has already referred to, we could look at Malachi 2:3: "Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it."

    That's very vivid text. "Visual" text. It's another example where we see the Bible itself using crude imagery. Or would God be sinning by using this kind of imagery? If so, then I guess some people are more holy than God!

    ReplyDelete
  6. What you said about defining what is course jesting, etc. is good.

    But I was surprised at this part:

    But what of the breastfeeding video? Well, let us actually dig into this and ask why this video would be offensive. Is it immoral to breastfeed? Clearly not. Children do it all the time.

    Obviously; that is too obvious to even mention.

    Ah, but perhaps it is immoral for adult men to breastfeed. Except there is no prohibition against it in the Scripture.

    Do you need a specific verse to know that a woman should not give her breasts to another adult man who is not her husband?
    The woodenness of demanding a verse that says "don't" is kind of similar to the way that Muslims think. "well, there's no verse against it specifically, so I guess it is ok."

    It is like the demand that Muslims make all the time: "Where does Jesus himself say in the Bible, "I am God; worship Me." ?

    or

    "Where is the verse that says "One God by substance / essence; and yet at the same time from eternity past, 3 in person/hypostasis ?"

    I am surprised that you even wrote this.

    That's kind of a weird and wooden demand for a specific verse.

    The depiction / acting in the video was of breastfeeding adult men who are not her husband.

    In fact, the Bible has no problem referencing breasts. Look at Proverbs 5:19 (“Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight”).

    Duh !! that is talking about married love making. Duh ! Not breast milk feeding.
    Same for the Song of Solomon verses on same subject.

    More than that, consider Isaiah 66:10-11: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her; that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance.”

    Seems obvious that that is symbolic of the comfort of God's love, using a mother's love to her infant child as a parallel. see the context from Isaiah 66:7-13

    Isaiah 66:13 is the interpretation of the extended parable / allegory / illustration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ken

      "Do you need a specific verse to know that a woman should not give her breasts to another adult man who is not her husband?"

      1. To be clearer, Peter's question could just as well be: is there a biblical prohibition against husbands breastfeeding from their wives?

      2. In any case, I strongly doubt Peter is recommending this! Rather, I think it's a way for Peter to put the question to White's supporters.

      3. Of course, it's obvious to most people a married woman should not breastfeed another man not her husband, yet (as the Islamicize Me #19 video shows) that's evidently what Muhammad expects married women to do!

      (Presumably Muhammad does not expect a single woman to breastfeed other men because that'd be fornication under Islam. Besides, virginal single women are biologically unable to breastfed because the production of milk requires a pregnancy or continued nursing. The body will eventually stop lactating if a woman discontinues nursing and is not pregnant.)

      "Seems obvious that that is symbolic of the comfort of God's love, using a mother's love to her infant child as a parallel."

      Couldn't it be arguable the video is "symbolizing" the act of breastfeeding? After all there is no literal lactating woman in the video under the burka and Wood and Malone are not drinking literal breastmilk.

      Delete
    2. Ken wrote:
      ---
      I am surprised that you even wrote this.

      That's kind of a weird and wooden demand for a specific verse.
      ---

      Except, as I quoted in my previous post: "...sin is not counted where there is no law" (Romans 5:13).

      Remember the context here. Dr. White, and many of his followers, are accusing Dr. Wood of sinful and shameful behavior here, yet they have not substantiated their claims from Scripture. Even your response is not quoting passages of Scripture, but instead asking questions that you seem to think have obvious answers as if you expect my moral intuitions to match yours. By doing that, you are essentially claiming that you do not need Scripture in order to justify your moral intuitions here.

      I find that to be a dangerous precedent. If I am going to accuse another person of sin, minimally I ought to be able to show from Scripture that it is a sin. I personally believe that's somewhat important here.

      Delete
    3. Epistle of Dude said:
      ---
      In any case, I strongly doubt Peter is recommending this!
      ---

      Correct. I am intentionally not giving my own position because I want those who are accusing Wood to actually demonstrate why they believe they can do so. I am not impressed with subjective reasoning. I want the objective concepts from Scripture.

      So many are so quick to condemn without having the faintest idea of whether or not what we're condemning is even opposed by Scripture. We just "feel" it and go with it. It's a horrible way to live.

      Delete
  7. The 1 Kings 18:27 passage is a classic one that I remember first hearing about in a sermon in 1981. The Hebrew of "relieving himself" is literally "to cover the feet" and it means squatting and defecating.

    Indeed that has always been funny to me; how Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and Baal as a god.

    they are just printed words though; acting things out in visual is different.

    The frozen text allows us to form pictures in our minds without actual imagery of depiction and making others stumble.

    I don't think we as Christians would approve of a pornographic film of a married couple acting all of the Scripture in Song of Solomon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ken

      "The frozen text allows us to form pictures in our minds without actual imagery of depiction and making others stumble."

      It's possible for text alone to be pornographic. Take trashy romance novels that depict all sorts of sexual acts in lurid detail. There aren't graphic images, but there sure are graphic words meant to elicit illicit sexual lusts (e.g. adulterous affairs with forbidden men).

      "I don't think we as Christians would approve of a pornographic film of a married couple acting all of the Scripture in Song of Solomon."

      I think Song of Songs is primarily allegory. Unless you think Song of Songs of pornographic, I think it's possible for a film to present Song of Songs without any pornographic images or dialogue.

      Delete
    2. "I don't think we as Christians would approve of a pornographic film of a married couple acting all of the Scripture in Song of Solomon."

      You are comparing apples and oranges. By mentioning this in the context of Wood's videos, you are comparing "pornographic films" with a video that shows NOTHING!

      And there are Biblical reasons why loving-making of any couple, married or otherwise, should not be recorded by others - because it would likely make one an adulterer (Matt 5:27-28, cf Luke 17:1). I dont see how Wood's videos, which show nothing of the sort to begin with, fall in the same category. I dont see how it is possible to lust about that woman in the video when one could see nothing of her (not even her face), nor do I see how someone after watching the video thinking to himself, "Oh, let me go and suck on some breasts now."

      The context of Wood's videos (and the content of Wood's videos) change EVERYTHING. Your comparison is unfair.

      Delete
  8. No; I think it is beautiful wisdom poetry for married romantic love primarily, within marriage - it is an extended version of Proverbs 5:19. It is not pornographic, but tasteful metaphors of sexual and romantic love in marriage without "spelling it all out". So, I don't think it is primarily allegory; it is too detailed about romantic sexual love within marriage to be allegorical.

    You are right about trashy romance novels.
    I forgot about that.
    But I was referring to Scripture of Song of Solomon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Peter Pike wrote:

    Except, as I quoted in my previous post: "...sin is not counted where there is no law" (Romans 5:13).

    The context of that verse is talking about history of mankind before the giving of the law.

    But was not sin imputed to Adam after he and Eve sinned; because they broke the commandment, a law of Genesis 2:16-17 - "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"
    ??

    It seems to me that "law" also means the principle of "the law of God" in general - not specific commands like the 613 commands of the OT law. The NT has more principles of law rather than specific legal codes.
    Seems kind of wooden the way you take it.

    For example "sin is lawlessness" in 1 John 3:4 includes much more than just violating specific commands of the moral law of the 613 laws in the OT.

    "lawlessness" includes general sins like selfishness, pride, rebellion, even something like "self-pity" (there is not specific law against that) or "manipulating / controlling others through smooth persuasion" etc. Those are sins and breaking the general "law of God" as breaking the general principle rather than a specific command.

    Your application is still very wooden, IMO.

    Even your response is not quoting passages of Scripture, but instead asking questions that you seem to think have obvious answers as if you expect my moral intuitions to match yours. By doing that, you are essentially claiming that you do not need Scripture in order to justify your moral intuitions here.

    Yes, in this instance I think it is obvious. (specifically breast feeding an adult male that is not one's wife) (the verse you gave is about love making within marriage, not lactating breast feeding)

    To even have to spell it out seems ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Yes, in this instance I think it is obvious. (specifically breast feeding an adult male that is not one's wife) (the verse you gave is about love making within marriage, not lactating breast feeding)"

      It is obvious because scripture deals with it - not because it is universally accepted to be true like, say, gravity is. Atheists who fornicate and some ultra-conservative Muslims would not find it obvious as you say because their moral compass is aligned differently.

      Scripture deals with it directly in Matt 5:27, and I quote, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Sucking on a woman's breast, be it your wife or not, will create sexual arousal. This would flatly make one an adulterer per the Lord's definition above.

      Delete
  10. "No; I think it is beautiful wisdom poetry for married romantic love primarily, within marriage - it is an extended version of Proverbs 5:19. It is not pornographic, but tasteful metaphors of sexual and romantic love in marriage without "spelling it all out". So, I don't think it is primarily allegory; it is too detailed about romantic sexual love within marriage to be allegorical."

    1. I think it's quite possible for allegory to be saying "detailed" things about a subject (e.g. "romantic sexual love within marriage").

    2. Although in literary terms one can distinguish between allegory and metaphor, I think if you accept Song of Songs as "tasteful metaphor", then we don't have any significant disagreement about what Song of Songs is. Allegory, metaphor, that's essentially what I'm saying too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So many are so quick to condemn without having the faintest idea of whether or not what we're condemning is even opposed by Scripture. We just "feel" it and go with it.

    True in most or many cases and most judging, condemning, putting down fellow Christians, etc.

    However, there is also -
    Not applying the principle of the weaker brother in Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8, etc.

    Some things are intuitively right or wrong, when our senses are trained by practice - Hebrews 5:14
    The ESV really nails it, IMO:

    But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

    It's a horrible way to live.
    Don't know if that follows automatically Always from what you said earlier. Like I wrote, "some things are intuitively wrong" when are senses are trained in Scripture. (the context of solid food and milk, = spiritual food, Scripture, good teaching based on Scripture.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " Like I wrote, "some things are intuitively wrong" when are senses are trained in Scripture. (the context of solid food and milk, = spiritual food, Scripture, good teaching based on Scripture.)"

      But that reasoning defeats your argument. :)

      If one is to intuitively know what is right or wrong, without showing from scripture, in the context of the solid wood metaphor - any Christian disagreeing with you can say they are the mature ones, and you are offended because you are of the weaker faith (cf. Romans 14:5-6). How does one settle it, then? And if you cannot objectively settle it, how can you allege that the other Christian has got it wrong.
      No disagreement can be resolved this way.

      I guess that is the crux of this post.

      Delete
    2. James McCloud said:
      ---
      I guess that is the crux of this post.
      ---

      Yes, you understood what I was going for.

      Delete