I appreciated Matt Albanese’s essay very much indeed and am grateful to Theopolis for the opportunity to interact on this subject and in this way. I would express my thanks also to Jeremy Bennett for his follow-up essay. It would seem that on the central points at issue, we are all on the same page. And by this, I do not mean the same bleeping page.  

For some, the title of my response—On Biblical Obscenity—should be considered the ultimate in oxymoronic behavior. In fact, this whole thread of essays dedicated to a discussion of the role of obscenity in Holy Writ should be considered entirely out of order. To be obscene is to do what’s not done, and if anything can be trusted to avoid doing what’s not done, it would be holy Scripture. Or so it would seem. If anything is unholy, the argument goes, it would be obscenity, and God is the thrice holy one, and His Word is the holy Word of God. How could the two ever be brought together?

But the sheer weight of the exegetical observations made so far puts the whole question into Q.E.D. territory. Even if we grant—as we should grant—that perhaps this example or that one could be debated, the cumulative effect of what has been shown thus far appears to me to be conclusive. What is appropriate to say or to write should not be determined by a committee of maiden aunts. If we agree that Scripture is the set of balances in which we must weigh all our words, then it seems to me that the issue is settled. It is true that we should remember that we will appear before Christ to give an account of every idle word (Matt. 12:36). But it is also true that the judgment will include correction for those who supplanted the Word of God for the sake of their traditions (Mark 7:13). And the idle words might not be the ones we thought.

But with all this said, exegesis is one thing, and application is quite another.  

Application is something that lies outside the boundaries of Scripture, by definition, and consequently anyone who seeks to model their speech on biblical patterns can always be corrected by, or shushed with, “But you’re not Ezekiel, pal.” And on a surface level, this is quite correct. But speaking of scales, it appears that we might have our sanctimonious thumb on them. If someone else, a more pious person, say, were to maintain that they always wanted to have their speech “be gracious” (Col. 4:6), they are never rebuked with the sharp comeback that “you’re not Paul, pal.”

Things that are said or done in the name of love, or kindness, or gentleness certainly do have their abuses. There is a love that suffocates, and a kindness that kills, and a gentleness that does not spank the toddler who is manifestly in need of a spanking. But the fact that such “kindly” virtues can be abused is never used as an argument to dissuade Christians from making the attempt to cultivate such graces in truth. The happy virtues are always cheered on, while prophetic rebuke finds itself hedged around with cautions, warnings, and exhortations to “watch it.”

The legalistic mind always veers toward a checklist mentality. If we could only assume that there is a registry of “bad words” in Heaven, and that it is the Christian’s responsibility is never to say any of them, the upside of this approach is that it keeps life simple. The downside is that in addition to being simple it is also simplistic, and runs afoul of Scripture. In short, it seeks to make life far simpler than it actually is.

In English, we have four categories of concerning speech—swearing, cursing, obscenity, and vulgarity. And in Scripture, we have injunctions against all four—swearing (Matt. 5:34), cursing (Rom. 3:14), obscenity (Eph. 5:12), and vulgarity (Eph. 5:4). Thus far the legalist is happy with me. But then we also have scriptural examples of all four—swearing (Heb. 6:13), cursing (1 Cor. 16:22), obscenity (Eze. 23:20), and vulgarity (Is. 64: 6). Moreover, such examples can be multiplied. There are good reasons for believing that when Belshazzar soiled himself when he read the handwriting on the wall (Dan. 5:6, CSB). We need wisdom, therefore, and not rules made out of pressure treated four-by-fours. Wisdom, not rules.

“But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

This passage is not talking about discerning the different between black from white, or up from down (Is. 5:20). Rather, it is addressing the more challenging situations . . . the difference between white and off-white. And the way to get there is by constant practice—“by reason of use.” This is why discussions such as the one we are having are so necessary. Without discussion, taboos will naturally form, and nobody will know the reasons why. In a similar way, taboos can also vanish, and no one knows the reason for that either. When I was a young man, the word sucks had the same kind of voltage as did the f-word. But notice that now, in 2026, I can spell out sucks and not the f-word. Such things need to be governed by usage, context, intent, talent, and reception. 

One final observation. The ultimate issue is sin versus righteousness, and as frequently happens, the fastidious word is the word that excuses a sin, and the coarse word the one that condemns it. In Chesterton’s words, “This is the simple point that, nine times out of ten, the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil and the refined word the word that excuses it.” We find that in our efforts to “spare the children,” we are actually taking moral clarity away from them, and smudging it all up.

As I am fond of saying, there is always a ditch on both sides of the road. In this case, one of them is a sewage ditch and the other is filled with sanctimonious Bowdlerism, run-off from the perfume factory.  

Douglas Wilson is Pastor of Christ Church (CREC) in Moscow, Idaho.