In Vain
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." (Exodus 20:7 NASB)
While Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic traditions differ on the exact enumeration of the Ten Commandments, the above verse is generally accepted as the Third Commandment. Where people differ is in just what it means. What is that "vain" thing? Does this mean we are not to say "God" or various names for Him when provoked into speaking in colorful metaphors? Is that what vain means? As Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What's inconceivable to me is that profane language would be all it means.
According to Merriam-Webster, "vain" means having no real value, marked by futility or ineffectualness, foolish, silly. (It also means conceited, but that's not important right now.) What does any of that have to do with cursing? Well, I guess it would actually be foolish, ineffectual, and maybe even conceited to suppose that God would eternally condemn someone else just because we happened to be irritated with them at the moment. That seems rather minor to me. And Dr. Laura Schlessinger agrees; she maintains that cursing must be only the most trivial form of using God's name in vain, that God would seem rather petty if that was His primary concern. (Whatever you think of Dr. Laura, she has written a good lay commentary on the Ten Commandments.) There has to be more to it than that.
Those who claim to be "people of faith" — regardless of the actual faith —
wear the name of God wherever they go. Some quite literally wear it, on a T-shirt, or as an ichthys fish symbol on the back of their car. Have you ever seen one of those fish symbols on a car in which the driver was giving the finger to another driver who annoyed him in traffic? (Or rather, how long ago did you lose count of such occurrences?) The driver was not doing such a wonderful job of wearing God's name, because the character portrayed was contrary to what ought to be associated with God. That indeed seems to be to be foolish and silly, and showing no real value for the name of Jesus that the fish represents. It must be taking His name in vain, even if no words were actually spoken. Now we may be getting somewhere.
Actually, that's still just scratching the surface. If you claim to be Christian or otherwise godly in order to lend legitimacy to whatever you happen to be saying, then what you are saying had better already be legitimate, and it ought to be within the character of God, both in its content and in its manner of delivery. If not, then essentially you are falsely claiming to be speaking for God. In ancient times, that could come down on you like a ton of bricks, er, rocks.
I wrote in an earlier blog about being offended by the way that Fred Phelps and his "church" picket soldier funerals and announce gays in hell. (And I wrote that blog before Phelps' daughter picketed a local funeral and allowed her 10-year-old son to trample an American flag.) I went on to express disappointment at Jerry Falwell referring to 9/11 as God's judgment. In both cases, they are making an appearance of preaching in the name of God when the apparent intention is merely to bring attention to themselves. (The late Dr. Falwell subsequently apologized for his remarks, but the Phelps crew continues merrily along in their self-glorifying ways...) Pat Robertson also occasionally announces that God told him this or that; I can't say whether or not God has spoken to him, but usually it just seems like something Robertson himself wanted to say.
But you don't have to be on a platform proclaiming "Thus saith the Lord!" in order to be vain in this fashion. If anything you say is more self-serving than God-serving, wrapping it in religious language is still doing the same thing. Are you saying it to honor God, or to make yourself look good?
One morning a few weeks ago, Jack Van Impe mentioned on his TV show that he had recently gone to a movie; he walked out when he heard the Lord's name being taken in vain (yes, referring to swearing) and asked for his money back [cue his trademark little smirk here]. It's okay to be offended by hearing God's name that way. (And yes, I am too.) But get real: if the movie was made anytime in the last 35 or 40 years and did not come with a G rating from the MPAA, you have to expect at least a little rough language, and have to be able to let it roll off of you so you can move on unchanged. And walking out of the movie is one thing, but making a show of asking for your money back is rather self-serving, showing how pious you are. If you were really expecting to be so offended, and actually planned the walkout in advance, then it was even more self-serving with the premeditation.
Something else that really bugs me is when fellow Christians confide something on the order of "God has been telling me that you need to...." Not "I think you need to do it" or "I feel like God wants it done", but God is telling me that you need to do it — whatever "it" is. When you hear such a pronouncement, is the fact that "it" really seems to mostly benefit the speaker such a huge coincidence? And amazingly, the speaker is not obliged to any more effort other than sharing that wonderful revelation with you. (But please don't confuse this with the Christian who humbly confides, "I feel that God is telling me I need to...." This asks nothing of the listener except understanding and support, leaving all responsibility for action on the speaker, and indicates that some honest and humble seeking is taking place.)
There are just too many other examples to list here. Heck, there are too many categories of examples to list. But there are many ways to bring shame upon the name of God, and it is our responsibility to avoid doing any of them. The first step in that responsibility is to open our silly eyes and realize how many things we already do shame or profane God's name, and not just in swearing.
While Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic traditions differ on the exact enumeration of the Ten Commandments, the above verse is generally accepted as the Third Commandment. Where people differ is in just what it means. What is that "vain" thing? Does this mean we are not to say "God" or various names for Him when provoked into speaking in colorful metaphors? Is that what vain means? As Inigo Montoya said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What's inconceivable to me is that profane language would be all it means.
According to Merriam-Webster, "vain" means having no real value, marked by futility or ineffectualness, foolish, silly. (It also means conceited, but that's not important right now.) What does any of that have to do with cursing? Well, I guess it would actually be foolish, ineffectual, and maybe even conceited to suppose that God would eternally condemn someone else just because we happened to be irritated with them at the moment. That seems rather minor to me. And Dr. Laura Schlessinger agrees; she maintains that cursing must be only the most trivial form of using God's name in vain, that God would seem rather petty if that was His primary concern. (Whatever you think of Dr. Laura, she has written a good lay commentary on the Ten Commandments.) There has to be more to it than that.
Those who claim to be "people of faith" — regardless of the actual faith —
wear the name of God wherever they go. Some quite literally wear it, on a T-shirt, or as an ichthys fish symbol on the back of their car. Have you ever seen one of those fish symbols on a car in which the driver was giving the finger to another driver who annoyed him in traffic? (Or rather, how long ago did you lose count of such occurrences?) The driver was not doing such a wonderful job of wearing God's name, because the character portrayed was contrary to what ought to be associated with God. That indeed seems to be to be foolish and silly, and showing no real value for the name of Jesus that the fish represents. It must be taking His name in vain, even if no words were actually spoken. Now we may be getting somewhere.Actually, that's still just scratching the surface. If you claim to be Christian or otherwise godly in order to lend legitimacy to whatever you happen to be saying, then what you are saying had better already be legitimate, and it ought to be within the character of God, both in its content and in its manner of delivery. If not, then essentially you are falsely claiming to be speaking for God. In ancient times, that could come down on you like a ton of bricks, er, rocks.
I wrote in an earlier blog about being offended by the way that Fred Phelps and his "church" picket soldier funerals and announce gays in hell. (And I wrote that blog before Phelps' daughter picketed a local funeral and allowed her 10-year-old son to trample an American flag.) I went on to express disappointment at Jerry Falwell referring to 9/11 as God's judgment. In both cases, they are making an appearance of preaching in the name of God when the apparent intention is merely to bring attention to themselves. (The late Dr. Falwell subsequently apologized for his remarks, but the Phelps crew continues merrily along in their self-glorifying ways...) Pat Robertson also occasionally announces that God told him this or that; I can't say whether or not God has spoken to him, but usually it just seems like something Robertson himself wanted to say.
But you don't have to be on a platform proclaiming "Thus saith the Lord!" in order to be vain in this fashion. If anything you say is more self-serving than God-serving, wrapping it in religious language is still doing the same thing. Are you saying it to honor God, or to make yourself look good?
One morning a few weeks ago, Jack Van Impe mentioned on his TV show that he had recently gone to a movie; he walked out when he heard the Lord's name being taken in vain (yes, referring to swearing) and asked for his money back [cue his trademark little smirk here]. It's okay to be offended by hearing God's name that way. (And yes, I am too.) But get real: if the movie was made anytime in the last 35 or 40 years and did not come with a G rating from the MPAA, you have to expect at least a little rough language, and have to be able to let it roll off of you so you can move on unchanged. And walking out of the movie is one thing, but making a show of asking for your money back is rather self-serving, showing how pious you are. If you were really expecting to be so offended, and actually planned the walkout in advance, then it was even more self-serving with the premeditation.
Something else that really bugs me is when fellow Christians confide something on the order of "God has been telling me that you need to...." Not "I think you need to do it" or "I feel like God wants it done", but God is telling me that you need to do it — whatever "it" is. When you hear such a pronouncement, is the fact that "it" really seems to mostly benefit the speaker such a huge coincidence? And amazingly, the speaker is not obliged to any more effort other than sharing that wonderful revelation with you. (But please don't confuse this with the Christian who humbly confides, "I feel that God is telling me I need to...." This asks nothing of the listener except understanding and support, leaving all responsibility for action on the speaker, and indicates that some honest and humble seeking is taking place.)
There are just too many other examples to list here. Heck, there are too many categories of examples to list. But there are many ways to bring shame upon the name of God, and it is our responsibility to avoid doing any of them. The first step in that responsibility is to open our silly eyes and realize how many things we already do shame or profane God's name, and not just in swearing.
Labels: Christianity
posted by Steve | 12:20 PM
|
2 comments
