In an an evangelical subculture that gets its ire up more over cussing than torture, Hoekendjik has some wisdom:
Christian virtues that are present [in the church] are minimized, while while the kind of “church virtues” that Dorothy Sayers once described as a combination of stateliness, childishness, shyness, dullness, sentimentality, daintiness, and depressedness are enlarged into colossal proportions. What would anyone have to do with that?
Dave Horstkoetter has plunked up a disturbing YouTube video of a neocon hack opining that Christianity and torture are just all hunky dory with one another. No surprise there of course. What is surprising is the fact that the whole discussion over there has turned into a goofy little kerfuffle about whether or not it’s really “Christian” to denounce endorsing torture while…uttering the F-word.
Leave it to us Christians to make conversations like this.
However, in the interest of settling this debate once and for all, I have a syllogism for us. Given that nearly all Protestants and certainly all evangelicals affirm Luther’s theological genius, especially his famed “theology of the cross”, let’s start there. Thesis 21 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation states that “A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.” I’m sure we can all agree on this point. Thus…
P1: Theologians of the cross ought to name things, events, and persons in accordance with what they actually are.
P2: Some things, events, and persons can only be truthfully described as fuckdragons and assclowns.
C: Ergo, the use of profanity is not only permissible, but essential for anyone who claims to be a theologian of the cross.