On May 31, 2011 The Age broke a story about the latest installment of Victorian Premier Ted Ballieu’s crackdown on crime. In a story entitled, “Big fines for those who cry foul,” Josh Gordon highlighted the plan “to slap potty-mouthed perpetrators with on-the-spot fines of up to $240 for using language deemed to be indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening.” Anti-swearing legislation has apparently been on the books since 1966, but formerly was only enforceable through the court system. As of July 1, the on-the-spot fines (which have been trialed over the past 3 years) will become law.
The piece was written in a condescending tone, and as anyone who reads The Age might have guessed it did not take long for rebuttals to be printed. In a back page editorial on June 2, Michael Stuchbery aired his thoughts on the new law. According to Stuchbery, “swearing is [...] a social adhesive that unites and binds us more than any other [...] it opens people up, cements relationships.” While he does note that “we would do well to ensure that we carry on a civil discourse with one another,” he says that this is “boring” and “there are some situations in which a choice curse word is the only possible response.” He even goes so far as to sardonically say that curtailing cursing is “tantamount to a human rights violation.” He calls the law “a bone-headed gesture.” Subsequent Age editorials and opinion columns echo these sentiments; one I read (Keith Dunstan, June 6, 2011) claimed that swearing is too commonplace of an occurrence to ban and that the fines must solely be for the purpose of raising revenue.
How should Christians respond to these developments and the swearing culture in Australia today? It is true that swearing is extremely common today – our media, schools, and workplaces are inundated with blasphemous references to Deity and spiritual terms (damnation, heaven, hell, etc.) and vulgar references to sexual activity, female dogs, fatherless children, human anatomy, and excrement. It may also be true that the government’s motives are not exactly pure in enforcing purity. Regardless, Christians must appeal to the ultimate authority of God’s word to determine their response.
First, the fact that the government has outlawed vulgar language should be enough to cause us to keep it out of our lives both publicly and privately, as the law already on the book forbids swearing even “if no one is present to hear it” according to Gordon’s article. Christians are commanded to render their obedience to the governing powers of man in anything that does not go against God’s will (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17; Acts 5:29).
On this rare occasion though, the government is actually inadvertently enforcing God’s will! Both Jesus and James commanded us to keep flippant references to Deity (swearing) and euphemisms for divine things out of our vocabulary (Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12). Paul broadened this to exclude all vulgarity from the Christian’s vocabulary: “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29).
Christians should welcome these laws and should already be working to bring purity to the world through their speech. I will be the first to admit that the battle for purity is not an easy battle, and this is certainly true of the battle over purity in speech. It is amazing how easily the world rubs off on us! However, I can say this of the battle to control our tongues – if we can win it, we will have traveled a long way along the road towards spiritual maturity. James said, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect [complete] man, and able also to bridle the whole body” (3:2). What an encouraging prospect! I can also say this – when you take a stand on the issue of “corrupt communication,” both refusing to speak it and refusing to hear it, you have an amazing ability to show the world that you are different (1 Peter 2:9).
Christians, please resolve not to be “potty-mouthed perpetrators,” but instead to speak only those words that “minister grace unto the hearers” (Ephesians 4:29)! ...and remember, God is always listening (Ecclesiastes 12:14).
~Patrick Swayne
Emily Gloria Wilson once worked as a maid for a man named John Kenneth Galbraith. One day Mr. Galbraith came home and asked his maid to hold his calls while he took a nap. While Mr. Galbraith was napping, Lyndon B. Johnson called. For those who are not history buffs, Lyndon B. Johnson was at that time President of the United States. He told Emily, “Get me Ken Galbraith. This is Lyndon Johnson.” Without hesitating, Emily replied, “He is sleeping, Mr. President. He said not to disturb him.” President Johnson replied, “Well, wake him up. I want to talk to him.” The maid replied, “No, Mr. President. I work for him, not you.” When Galbraith finally woke up and called the President back, the President said, “Tell that woman I want her here at the White House.”
Workers with this kind of dedication are hard to find these days. A trip to virtually any fast food restaurant will have you wondering whether workers even view themselves as employees. It seems that most people simply believe they are just entitled to a pay check for showing up. There’s barely a drive to serve in many professions, let alone a drive to serve well.
Christians are to be different than the world, and this of course is true when it comes to work. Christians ought to follow the advice of Solomon, who said, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). As the old saying goes, if it is worth doing, it is worth doing well. More than this though, Christians are to live to a high standard because of the one for whom they work: “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Colossians 3:23). Christians work for the Lord first, and ought to act accordingly.
This has two obvious applications. First, we ought we ought to give the best that we possibly can in every worthwhile endeavour. Whether we are a student, an employee, a boss, or retired, we have an obligation to live as though the Lord is our employer. Second, like Ms. Wilson, we ought to keep our priorities straight. It does no good to say that we are serving the Lord in the workplace if our work pulls us from our service to Christ. When an employer asks us to fall short of God’s standard such as by asking us to regularly miss church services or to compromise our principles to make a sale, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
Ms. Wilson was a worker who had conviction in her service to Mr. Galbraith. If only we could have that same kind of conviction in our service to God! Our service to the Lord will probably keep us out of the White House (or The Lodge, which I am told is the Australian Prime Minister’s Official Residence), but we can be sure of home in heaven if we remain faithful to the one for whom we work (John 14:1-3).
~Patrick Swayne
We knew we were in for an adventure when five minutes into the bus ride our driver treated himself to a snack—one that came out of his own nostrils. According to my wife, watching someone pick their nose and eat its contents is one of those things too horrible to watch but impossible to avoid; she stared, mouth wide open, while I tried to zone out and prepare for the trip. We were on a bus, headed from Malacca, Malaysia to Singapore.
We probably shouldn't have expected too much from our coach’s captain — at 22 Ringgit a ticket (about 7 US dollars) you’re simply not going to receive stellar service. Another five minutes later he was overtaking cars on the interstate, all the while seemingly having a great time talking on his mobile phone. He almost stranded us at Johor Bahru when we accidently got off thinking we had arrived at a customs point — we walked a good hundred meters before we realized we were at the wrong place. Thankfully, he hadn’t pulled away— though we were certain he would have had we been a second more. This was confirmed to us when he let us off at the customs checkpoint in Singapore and did in fact fail to wait for us to get through.
Being on the right side of the Singapore/Malaysia border, I was a bit upset that he had done this to us but not really worried about finding our way to friendly faces. No one spot in Singapore is any great distance from any other, as it is an island and a city-state nation. Chantelle on the other hand had a bit of separation anxiety. It’s funny how attached you can grow to someone who only a few hours before you could not wait to leave behind.
The feelings of anxiety my wife felt thought would have been nothing in comparison to that felt by the Ephesian elders when they realized they had seen Paul for the last time. The text says of their emotional state, "And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more" (Acts 20:37).
Hone in on the word in bold: sorrowing. The same Greek word was used to describe the emotional state of Jesus’ parents as they frantically searched for Him. Luke records, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke 2:48). The word sorrowing is translated, "anxiously," in the NKJV.
Without taking too many liberties with a language that’s "Greek to me," I find it interesting that in both of these passages the sorrow described is a sorrow brought upon by separation. I then find it interesting that the same word used to describe Jesus’ parents and the Ephesian elders is only used once more in scripture—to refer to the rich man when he awoke in hades. There the word is translated, "tormented" (Luke 16:24-25).
We all suffer separation anxiety on this earth—be it from bus drivers, loved ones, or our homes. The greatest sorrow that separation can bring is to be tormented in an eternal fire away from God. May all of us live so as to avoid eternal separation anxiety.
