I would hardly compare "asking Mary Kate to clean up the poem before she presented it in church" with "asking the widow to wipe off her coins before dropping them in the offering plate." Have we lost all sense and discernment?

Here's an opportunity to disciple Kate before she verbally deficates on the congregation. Don't let her do something that when she's more mature in Christ she looks back on with embarassment.

On the subject of cussing in the pulpit . . . When I hear about pastors doing this, I wonder, "What's going on? Why would they do this? Do they think it's cute? Is it for shock value? Are they trying to be relevant because they think everybody else cusses? Do these same pastors sleep around so they can relate to people in their churches who act immorally?"

As for the F-bomb, let's remember this: Our society is still decent enough that not even primetime network television allows the F-bomb! Will the church be the first to slouch toward Gomorrah by allowing it during primetime worship on Sunday morning?

"But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth" (Col. 3:8).

Call me old fashioned, but I still think the F-bomb is filthy language. It doesn't belong in a decent society and certainly not in a worship service.

What a courageous pastor...to allow self-expression in its rawest form, to lay it all out there in what alot of people think and feel...but often the older saints would not dare to think or let pass over their lips.

I know it would not fly in our congregation...in our youth ministry yes, our church service...NO.

I can appreciate the pastor's desire to encourage this artistic expression and her fragile faith. My question would be, what is the purpose of the Christmas eve service? Is it a time to celebrate the advent of God in human flesh? Or is it a "testimony" time where everyone shares their journey? I personally would not allow the profanity because I don't see how it honors Christ. Is she creative enough to convey the emotions without the offensive language? I know every member in my congregation watched a movie the weekend before that contained all 7 of those words, but I would emphasize the "specialness" of our worship time. Coming into God's presence for worship ought to awaken us to the incredible privilege that it is. While the Bible is full of "life in the raw," honesty, transparancy, graphic language, etc., it never records David calling Goliath a "sorry SOB." But then, I still have problems with reading parts of Song of Solomon out loud!

I would ask Mary Kate to use another word(s) to express the anger she's trying to get across.

I'm thinking from the congregation. My five year old sits with me during service. I really don't want him hearing profanity at church; and I don't care to be audibly assaulted while I worship.

Is it really necessary to pick the fly poop and the pepper to determine which words are truely offensive? Would these same folks go through such considerations when choosing their next movie to watch with the family?

This is a tough one. The "F-Bomb" is not a blasphemy, and should not be mistaken as such. I think of Skubala, and how Paul uses it in Phillipians and wonder if we've gotten a little too puritanical for our own good when it comes to expressing what we're feeling.

However, on Christmas Eve... I am not sure that's what I would personally want to hear. I would need to see this poem and be really convinced of it's artistic merit to approve it. It would also really depend on the congregation. That would absolutely ruin worship for my congregation.

At his church, it may be just the thing that moves people to tears and helps Christmas be more clearly and deeply revealed to them, hard as it may be to believe, for some of you.

The existential nature of post modern theology is both refreshing and disconcerting. It is refreshing because it gives those of us who are rigid in traditionalism or frozen in fundamentalism an opportunity to rethink faith in ways that could help us achieve freedom. To the post modern generation the simple answers and formulas that have sufficed for several recent generations don’t ring true. The post modern mind is repulsed by legalism, judgmentalism, and hypocrisy. I’m thankful for creative post modern minds who cause us to sincerely evaluate why we do and what we do.

Existential theology can also be disconcerting because it tempts us to lower the bar on scriptural authority. Bar lowered, we can then question tenets of faith that have rung true for decades. Further, it causes many from both side of the cultural chasm to dig in their heals and throw stones at those who disagree. Will the clear biblical mandate for unity hold together such a diverse body of Christ? How different are those who are skeptically evaluate the way things have always been done from the one who skeptically evaluate the new way of thinking? What are we losing or gaining if we embrace dropping the “F-bomb,” from the pulpit? Is what we gained or loss worth the negative repercussions that will occur in the body of Christ?

I think I would tell her the expression itself is not bad. But we must discern the appropriateness of our surroundings and not create a “stumbling bock” for others. Let’s clean it up a bit for the Christmas Eve service. If she can not handle that then he needs to directly deal with her “fragile” faith in a loving way.

While I support Mary Kate's right to self-expression, I also live in Christ's desire to us transformed.

I think context is important...not sure if the Christmas service is the best place for this....I'd support a special service for those wanting to come and offer this type of gift; then those who might be offended could choose to attend or not.

Wow, that is a tough one. I am not one to sanitize language that the world uses but there is a difference between a movie theater and a church sanctuary. Am I becoming a stumbling block to a sister in Christ by explaining that a Christmas service is not an appropriate forum for dropping f-bombs ? I don't think so. Isn't there some line that I can draw in a postmodern society ? I mean, why not go ahead and illustrate a sermon on sexual immorality with R rated video? I appreciate the concern shown by those involved but I hope part 2 reveals that they gently told the poet they could not allow Christmas F-bombs

It is time for Mary Kate to throw off the old ways of thinking and talking. The church does not need to be shocked into caring about people. We already do. This is not a difficult decision.

I hate that #%@! in church. But that's just me.

I long for a Christmas Eve Service at my own church, but since we rent rooms, it is too hard to do. As I envision my urban church when we finally have our own place and a Christmas Eve service, I think about the families that attend with young children while someone is sharing their raw emotions and the F-Bomb.

Actually, Christmas eve, in my opinion is a time to share the wonder of the Christmas Story. Shepherds watching their flocks, friendly beasts, stars and wisemen with gifts. We remind ourselves and teach our children of these timeless events and wait in awe, again, for the birth of the child.

To me, Christmas Eve is the one time of the year to stop focusing on the raw, harsh, reality of our world and look for angels crying Glory to God in the Highest and to run to the manger to see what great things have happened.

Let's save the raw emotion for another day. Any other day. The Holy family had a little time before they had to run to Egypt to escape Herod's murderous intentions. Is there a running to Egypt Holiday? So how about Good Friday, or Maundy Thursday? Those would be good raw emotion days.

before we get to far ahead of ourselves hear, let me remind you who Jesus was hanging out with back in the day - it wasn't the hoity toity "gotta follow the rules or you suck" guys.

Christians need to get their heads out of the sand. And i wasn't going to use sand. But if I used what I wanted to use, you'd probably censor me

It's interesting how some have apparently skimmed the article and posted comments based on a surface level reading. Mary Kate was not using a cuss word merely to be inflamatory. She was not "expressing her anger" but rather quoting someone to whom she had ministered. Imagine the difference in impact between the statements "John was angry" and "John said, "I'm so f***ing torn up right now I don't know what I might do." Mike was not going into some Derrida induced trance and deciding that words have no meaning at all but rather considering the artist's heart, the audience, the potential outcome, etc. In my mind he went above and beyond the call to seek wise counsel, a rare quality in an age when many are too busy to do this thing when they need it most. Mike obviously gave the situation a lot of thought - I wonder if most of us give as much thought to some of the trite and lyrically shallow worship songs that we sing, or to some of the careless comments we make to our friends. Cuss words have a long and rich history, and language evolves over time. I have read a bit of the history of some words that are now considered foul only to find that they weren't foul 200 years ago. Where will the f-word be in 100 years? I fear that we are mistaking standards of "respectable" white middle class behavior with those of the Bible. However, as this is a "non-essential" in my eyes, I ask this question of those who hold to the position that cussing is wrong - What is your language like in rush hour traffic, when you are frustrated with your family, when you don't get your way, when you hit your thumb with a hammer? Are cuss words escaping your lips; are they boiling just below the surface? Do you speak ill of your co-workers or those who irritate or annoy you? Jesus indicated that He is not interested in our outward signs of righteousness, but in the state of our heart. The whole issue of cussing has parallels to the issue of drinking. I know many Christians who won't touch a drop of alcohol (which is fine) but can't give a good reason for doing so. The same with cussing - "It's just not acceptable." Why? "It just isn't proper." Hmmm.....is it the instrument that is sinful or the way in which it is used?

What if a brand new convert stood before the "Scum of the Earth" congregation and exclaimed (with tears streaming down his face), "I can't even explain how happy I am! I'ts like I'm full of so much goodness now. I'm so f@&#ing happy!"

Sure a pastor would eventually pull him aside and gently explain how, even though he's been cussing for the past 42 years of his life, there needs to be a transformation of his tongue as well. But that it was evident that his joy was overwhelming, and that he is loved as he is.

Would that spontaneous cussing be worse than a planned cussing? If it's about the word itself, then both situations would seem to be just as troublesome.

But if the heart is the key, then both the spontaneous and the planned cussing would seem to be equally beautiful. Initially shocking for many in the congregation to be sure, but seemingly lovely to our Lord.

I'm not a pastor, but as a basic congregant that admires the efforts of "Scum," those are my thoughts. It seems that we should love what our Lord loves, and guide those who are young, or are actively seeking in their faith

I may be wrong, but in reading the other postings, I have come to the conclusion that none of the rest of us pastor a church like Scum of the Earth. If we were honest, we might admit that often we look at the "Right Brained and the Left-out" and consider them a nuisance! Honestly, we quietly hope they will take their "F-bombs" and go somewhere else.

I love you Mike!

I think we should put Mary Kate in the same box that we put God in and let them hash it out.

My hunch is that many who post would consider Mary Kate the "weaker sister." Would we be as patient and gracious with her as we'd urge her to be with others?

Hey I'm left-brained and go to SCUM, but its still great and real. This is the church of Acts 1. Believe it! Besides, They must have used the "F" back then too.

My immediate thought is: In a Christmas Eve service??? With kids present? I'm guessing a poem laden with the F word is probably not laden with optimism. (though I could be wrong.) Would it kill anyone to focus on the uplifting aspects of Advent?

And by the way...Scum Church might not have kids in their services now...but eventually they will. Whatever precedent they set now will be with them a long time.

"I must content myself with following my Lord, who made himself of no reputation to go after out of the way sinners in an out of the way fashion. I would sooner do violence to pulpit decorum and break through pulpit decency than not to break through hard hearts."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

It would disturb me greatly if I saw any church leader use bad language. I go to a number of bible sites and as yet I have had no examples of bad language.

Are there cases where this has happened?

Christian regards

Vic

Kudos to Skye for a very accurately and provocatively written story. The reactions thus far are predictable, though I'm pleasantly surprised at how many AREN'T condemning our decision. But curiously absent is any reflection on the meaning of Christmas Eve--those who object to what Mike did seem to think this is a time for GREATER sanitizing than other services. But surely that just underlines our closet docetism as evangelicals. Mary and Joseph were disallowed a decent place; a manger is a cattle trough; the defecation one respondent referred to would have been abundantly present; that the incarnation should take place in such humiliating circumstances is at the very heart of the gospel message. Except perhaps for Good Friday, is there any BETTER a setting for such poetry? My how far the church has come from historical realities! But I do agree with the one writer about his five-year old, and let me assure you I've never seen any five-year olds at Scum!

Eric may be right that the congregation in question would react far differently than the congregation I preach to every week. That poem would never be acceptable in my group. It may work very well in Sares' congregation...unless there are children or other sensitive souls expected in the audience. Then I think the poem should be reserved for another time. I don't think I would ask Mary to change it. But there are audiences for which it would be inappropriate. So I might feel it necessary to ask her to save it for some other occasion.

Jesus lived among the sinful, but did not sin. He ate with the prostitutes; he didn't fornicate.

Seeing as how we're reminded in the letters that "coarse jesting" is improper, how could one exclude vulgar speech?

I have never seen anyone treat an artist and their work with so much respect like Sares did. It's refreshing and it reflects the love of the Incarnation.

I would allow the F-bomb, and I'd make sure the congregation are ready to receive this person into the fold. I like the comment someone made about mistaking biblical behaviour for white middle class ethics. I think this F-bomb issue acts as a foil to this issue.

I wish I could be encouraged and loved like that with my work...

at least someone else gets it.

If I were Pastor Sares I would stop pastoring the SCUM Church and become a Presbyterian pastor. When you are a part of a denominational church, you don't have such problems. The only problem you have in the Presbyerian Church USA is heresy. Pick your battle, Mr. Sares.

I applaud the thoughtful approach taken by those involved in the situation. I don't see anybody condemning those in the situation, I see disagreement. But if I am considered to be a rigid fundementalist because I don't think someone should be dropping f-bombs in a church service tell me who is being judgmental?

I think that we can be culturally relevant without having to resort to dropping the Effinheimer in the sanctuary. Certainly we want to relate to those we minister to, but we don't need to be Howard Stern either.

But of course there is always the occassional slip up. Opening night of Minnesota Wild Hockey this year, in front of 21,000 rabid hockey fans, Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty dropped the F-bomb on accident. He was saying "It's time to drop the puck". He apologized profusely :-)

Big Chris

There are many ways to articulate feelings. Although the story of the Incarnation is surrounded by coarse shepherds, defecating donkeys, and other examples of the human experience, the Holy Spirit took the care to tell the story without resorting to vulgarity.

The beauty of language is that we can paint word pictures without having to resort to gutter language.

Take a higher road. Teach the sister to master the art and use language that truly defines her observations and feelings rather than denigrating to the lowest common denominator.

What next, a cross in urine to illustrate our contempt for God before we came to him? Surely we can express ourselves better when the redemptive blood of Jesus begins to flow through our veins.

....and people continue to miss the point. I can't find mention of Mike, Mary Kate, or anyone at Scum having thoughts along the lines of "How can we be culturally relevant? I know, let's drop the F-bomb!!! That'll be great!" However, I have been in churches that were so "relevant" that I felt like I was in an episode of Friends instead of a worship service. The debate was not over whether the word in the poem should or should not be used because it has the potential for relevance. In fact, in most of our strivings to be culturally relevant, we Christians either come off as contrived or we end up creating our own little culture and then act relevant to no one but ourselves. There is no pretense to relevance in this story, there is only the question of the appropriateness of a given word in a given poem at a given service to a very specific congregation that is made up of people who are sick of churches that won't give them the time of day. What is most relevant to anyone who walks into the doors of a church is if they are loved and accepted as is or if they have to put on a mask to feel like they fit in.

Remember the people who became upset with Jesus when he and his disciples picked grains during the Sabbath which was considered a violation?

Are we letting our notions and traditions of another festival get in the way of God's heart?

Which is more meaningful? Celebrating God's handiwork in the life of a precious soul or a squeaky clean family-friendly Christmas programme where God only watch from a distance?

We think our children shouldn't be exposed to profanity. But the truth is, they will be...sooner or later. Do you want to prepare them beforehand or leave them to cope on their own. Instead of shielding them from the world, take the opportunity to teach them.

Remember, the Shepherd left the 99 sheep to look for the ONE who is lost. What would we do?

This pastor is a hireling. The woman in question needs some serious biblical discipleship and church discipline if necessary, not a platform to display her rebelliong. If she has this kind of anger in her, what does it say about the condition of her heart? If the f-bomb is dropping from her lips on a regular basis, she needs to repent and get her heart right with the Lord. Nobody should be in leadership or allowed to "minister" to the congregation until they have the fruit of the Spirit evident in their lives. The fruit of this woman is rotten and as such, the pastor has an obligation to protect the children of the congregation from her influence. What would a poem, written by someone in rebellion, filled with the f-word have to do with worship? Or maybe at these cool, hip churches they are more interested in becoming centers for low budget performing arts and God doesn't matter. Imagine The Isaiah in God's holy presence, seeing God high and lifted up, cutting loose with filthy language. God help this pastor. He's the real problem here.

Personally, if you accidently swear, just repent but dont make swearing in your life a habit. and no swearing in worship if you can help it. simple.

Hmmm. Mike is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Oh wait...Did I just use the word "damn"? Seriously, I agree with the person who said " Is she creative enough to convey the emotions without the offensive language?" I have noticed that artists in general seem to think poems are inherently more edgy or creative if they contain bad words or adult themes. Can she portray her spiritual angst without resorting to the same 7 words that the rest of the world uses? Try challenging her from an artistic standpoint.

The reason and way any congregation should worship is to praise God and to give Him Glory
period.................!!!!

Does this poem with filthy language give God
glory?

You tell me.

By this point, most sides of the argument have been discussed. As a friend of both Pastor Mike and Mary Kate for many years, it is almost laughable to hear her referred to as a "weaker sister." Physically and emotionally speaking, I know of no tougher woman and few tougher men.

Additionally, she is one of the most gifted writers I know. The idea that Mike could "teach the sister to master the art and use language that truly defines her observations and feelings" is equally laughable. I am sure Mike would attest to this himself.

Years ago, I was part of the group that helped start Scum of the Earth. I liked the humility implied by the name and the idea that everyone is welcome. Most of all, I like how it communicates that being of faith makes me no better than anyone else. Anyway, the poem was powerful and many people were touched. Mary Kate did remove many of the expletives that the young "delinquent" originally used when she quoted him in her poem. Then, when asked to do so, she removed even more of them when she read it at Scum. Nevertheless, the pain experienced by this young child and Mary Kate's candid reference to it were both touching and powerful. The majority of those present felt closer to their maker for hearing of it.

There are obviously contexts where casual language is inappropriate. In my profession, it is almost never accepted. Although I am not one of them, I can agree with the conservatives that, in general, a large-group church service might not be the best place to regularly use the "f-word." Nevertheless, in this specific context, it glorified God.

I am trying not to be judgemental here, but I ask those of you who are following this thread to consider the following. Which is obscene? The rare use of a powerful adjective for emphasis OR the name-calling and inflammatory remarks directed towards Mike and Mary Kate found above? I say this, not in retaliation, but in hope that we can all better apply the command, "Judge not lest you be judged."

Cheers to you all.
baker

may I read the poem?

I'm a "hireling?" (This is in response to Ingrid.) I understand the reference (John 10:12), and see it as a serious accusation. When did the discussion above become grounds for an attack on my character? As a sister in Christ, you have the right to question my decision. My relationship with the Shepherd is His concern, since He knows me (John 10:14). In one sense, however, I see all of us undershepherds as hirelings of one sort or another. Jesus is the only shepherd we sheep can really count on when the wolf comes!

The f-word, used in anger and directed towards God or another, is surely an indication of the state of someone's heart; and you're right, that person should repent. That is exactly the kind of thing St.Paul was talking about in Ephesians 5 and Collosians 3. If the adolecsent who was being quoted within the poem were in my congregation, I would have been obliged to help him to mature. Mary Kate was quoting him in a poem that spoke of her own redemption. She was not shouting the word in anger at anyone.

As for the low-budget performing arts comment, I'll give you a couple of options. First, come to Scum sometimes and see if we believe that "God doesn't matter" after you have talked to our artists and witnessed their work first-hand. Second, you could make a sizeable donation to their artistic endeavors so that we could try something truly "high-budget."

I am not surprised to hear this story or the reactions which my comments might provoke.

Although only the Lord knows, we are certainly in the end, end times and because of that, we should expect much worse things to come in what we wrongly call the church. The church of course is The Body of Christ and made up of His sons and daughters only.

Since when is The Bible a "book of suggestions" and not a "book of obedience"?

While Ephesians 4:29 clearly states that cursing is not for Christians, Ephesians 5:5 clearly states where the unrepented that do that will go.

Some comments address the issue of "not judging".
And when that refers to giving your opinion in regards to things it is 100% correct. But then, it is a totally different matter when The Word gives a clear command and we refer to it.

Among the sad comments I have seen, there is one that says that for the church service it's not OK but that it is OK for the youth ministry.
No wonder only 18% of the youth stay in the faith after high school.

That all these things (Mary Kate affair among millions of other things) take place among the ones that congregate is fully explained by Jesus
in Luke 18:8

Hi... this is Mary Kate, no really, it is... I promise you.

Mike called me and left me a message that this article was going up online, and while I haven't had a chance to talk to him myself since then, I felt compelled to take a look at the "stoning" that resulted from it.

A little tid-bit about the context and history of this poem: First of all, the poem was introduced with a "parental advisory" so that anyone with small children in attendance could plug the appropriate ears, or choose to step out for a moment. Secondly, the original poem was indeed peppered with profanity, just like the mouths and minds of the kids I used to work with. After much deliberation and discussion, the poem was hacked down to a bare suggestion of what was initally said. And while I didn't have my introduction memorized, I remember saying truthfully that a crowd of smelly, teenaged, delinquent boys taught me more about the loving heart of God than the church I was raised in ever could. Furthermore... it seemed appropriate that this was the case, seeing as how 2000 years ago God was found the last place one expected to see him: in a filthy stable and cradled in a feed box.

Now let me tell you a little about myself:

I have been a Christian since the time I was 4 years old. As much as a four year old can ever be a Christian... I say that because I believed in Jesus because my parents told me to- I never really had a choice in the matter. You're fooling yourself if you think this isn't a common malady in Christianity today. My father was an abusive and distant man, my mother was the adopted child of two alcoholics... and something was bound to give. As much as we prestented the perfect little faith-based home to those around us... we were in shambles, I was in shambles and nothing but the fear of my father kept me in line until I graduated high-school. At which point, all hell broke loose... literally. I was tired of living the lie. I was tired of pretending to be the righteous little Christian girl when everything inside of me was SCREAMING to say something... ANYTHING about how alone, frustrated, scared and condemmed I felt. I wanted to be heard, to be validated, to be loved for everything I was and everything I felt... regardless of how ugly it was. Oh, but REAL Christians aren't ugly, are they? All my life I had been told to act like everything was fine... we would go to church and I was convinced that everyone would have been horrifed if they knew how messed up we really were.

Anyone else ever feel that way?

Eventually I didn't want to be acceptable or palateable, I wanted to be honest. And the predictable cycle of self-destruction ensued. But not before I met this pastor named Mike Sares, and for reasons completely beyond my human understanding... Mike and I became friends. And through innumerable bad-relationships, countless trips to Planned Parenthood, a truly depraved circle of friends and one drug overdose... Mike still kept in touch with me, he indeed went the extra mile when most pastors (and several of you who slammed his characted above) would have lost their stomach for my antics. He never approved of my actions, and never pulled any punches when he told me how terribly I was behaving... but in the same breath, he was asking me if I was okay... asking me if I wanted to come over for dinner. And when I was tired out, ashamed and too humiliated to go to any of your fine white-washed intstitutions for help... I knew that Mike still cared, I could still turn to him, and he helped me see that his compassion for me was merely a fraction of what God had for me, what God HAS for me. Mike was a mighty conduit for my reintroduction to a faith that I had discarded for being "fake". And when I started working with the delinquents, "my boys"... I gained an even deeper understanding of how fiercely you can love something that is so tainted, so broken, so hopeless, and yes, so obscene.

Those kids ARE US in my opinion, since none of us can stand blameless before God. We are ALL locked into our sins, our failings, our appetites... we are ALL obscene before God. Even you who so smugly stand in judgement on a man who has been more of a pastor/leader/shepherd/father than anyone else I've known. That poem wasn't an attempt to be disgusting or edgy. That poem was an acknowledgement of how wretched things can really get, how horrible someone can really feel and yet still be cherished in the kingdom of heaven.

Right now the world is full of people- and YOUR CHURCH is full of people who want to scream, who are sick of being presentable. The church is full of alcoholics, drug addicts, porn addicts, liars... and if you think your church isnt, then you aren't doing your job. If the lost and broken don't feel as though they can be honest about who they are and how awful they feel, then you aren't doing your job.

Say what you want about me, I promise you I have heard much worse from people far more personally significant. But I challenge you to look at yourselves. The things you have been saying about my pastor and close friend -the things you have been saying about my church where the unpresentable masses feel as though God might just give a flip about them too- are malicious, cruel, uninformed and far more obscene than one little politically-incorrect word. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

-Mary Kate Makkai

I'm a young elder at my church in carson, california. I myself have experienced some of the dilema you're going through but in a different way. All I can say to you Pastor is to do what God says. I know that's what everyone says but It's true. The reading of such poem would fit better in a school setting but not in a church which is the House of God. I'm sure my parents wouldn't have appreciated that in their house. Thanks bro and keep the faith.

I'm interested in part 2, don't know if it's available yet. But before I look for it, here is a thought:

Why on earth does the pastor involved give so much weight to the supposed fragility of the poet? The first place to start, in my opinion would be to have a conversation with her. She is on a journey of faith back into the church (among other things). Is she really going to be completely unwilling to take into consideration the feelings and sensibilities of other people in the congregation? That is a big assumption. Most people--not all, but most--come to an understand the need for respecting and negotiating with other people's sensibilities at some point in the their adult lives.
The young poet cares about people (look at her line of work). I'd be surprised if she completely disregards the sensibilities of fellow church people.

Finally, let's assume the worst. She does disregard the sensisbilities of others. She is insistent on speaking the poem with the "f"s left in it. If the pastor knows that many people will be offended, even hurt by it, why would he put the interests of one person above the interests of many others in such a non-essential matter? If it were a matter of justice for one person, than others might need to be slighted. That is not what this is. For many, the redemptive nature of being part of the church is that it is also a refuge from the vulgarity and crassness of the world. For others, the church is a place where propriety IS important, and not for pharisaical reasons. The church is a place of worship of the holy God. I could imagine a lot of people being offended by the f-word in church even if they were willing to hear it tolerantly in conversation with another person because that was honestly where that other person was.

The way the question is framed thus far exhibit disregard for the pastor's primary allegiance to his flock, not to any one individual's preferences. That's how I see it, so far.

Well, I posted before I had read the whole comment thread. (Not good, I know). I really appreciated getting to read Mary Kate's response. I also admired Mike for his loving, pastoral role in her life. I think Mary Kate's plea for the people who want to scream can be summed up this way: many people are dying for and long for authenticity and honesty in the church. Many people have the sense that they cannot exist in the church with their flaws and brokeness and sin.

I think Mary Kate is right. This is the way it is for many people. And it looks like Mike as a pastor is good at ministering to such people. We need more pastors like him.

And I still think Mark Kate's need for authenticity and honesty (which we all need) in the church and the concerns of other people in the church need not be mutually exclusive. The poem can still be deeply authentic and really portray brokenness. It can do so in a way that will not hurt the real concerns and feelings of others in the church. I think there is simply a false dichotomy going on here.

In any case, I'm thankful for a thought provoking thread.

BTW, I speak to one aspect of all of this with some personal experience here. I was part of a church where the leadership consistently chose the needs of a certain segment of the congregation above the needs that I and a whole other segment had. One segment consistently got a yes and the other a no. The sad thing is that a bit of understanding and creative work could have resulted in a yes to both (and it wasn't rocket science, either).

Until now, I have been using a screen name (goldenboy) but here is a post with my real name. The comments directed at Mike are incredible. Many words have been put in his mouth, and many accusations have been made against his character, all based on a one page article that this website was bold enough to publish. Having been blessed with his preaching over the years, I have never heard Mike refer to God's Word as a "book of suggestions", but rather as a book of Divine revelation, authority, and wisdom. I have never seen him act cowardly. Let's see - cowards turn tail and run and therefore never face their fears. Mike, while at times afraid, is obedient to the Lord's calling to love the unloved, and like Mary Kate said, he'll tell you when you're out of line with Scripture and in the next sentence invite you over to his house for dinner. However, like Jesus, I'm sure Mike would much rather be called a friend of sinners than have the praise of man heaped upon him for giving an outward show of morality. Yeah, I said morality, not holiness. They aren't the same thing. Anyway, I'll end with another quote from Spurgeon - "Jesus receiveth sinners, and no one else."

Maybe we could say that all things are lawful but all things are not expedient or edifying.

Interesting that the most vicious comments were aimed at the dissenting viewpoint. How sad that those who emphasized obedience to the Word of God were called judgemental and self-righteous.

If you didn't really want to hear the opposing viewpoint, then why ask?

Easy solution: Have her say "F-in" or "friggin" instead of the actual word.

In all fairness, comments insinuating that "Scum is leading others towards Gomorrah", "Mike is a false shepherd (hireling)", and "Mary Kate needs to get right with God and grow up" sound pretty vicious to me.

Quote from an unrelated article on creating a culture of respect

"The subject of human sexuality is especially to be treated with great respect. In the Biblical view, human sexuality is a great gift given to us as part of the bonding experience of marriage, and for the privilege of participating with God in creating children. I believe that the joy of sexual bonding is experienced in part because of the joy of God in creating. God indeed enjoys human sexuality. The beauty and creativity of human sexuality is enhanced and furthered by speaking about it with respect. Sexual humor and jesting is part of that coarsening disrespect that must be overcome in the community of faith. Ephesians 5:3,4 speaks of this as follows, "Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place, but thanksgiving." (NIV) The general practice of using a reference to human sexual intercourse as a four letter adjective that modifies all kinds of nouns is a terrible demeaning of God's great gift."

Context is everything. Did it glorify God? I wasn't there, but I expect it did.

I can say many things, many of which have already been said. I'm not a huge fan of using what we consider "profanity" in anywhere, especially during a church serivice. Yet, how many of us sing Christmas carols that talk about the various farm animals in attendence at Jesus' birth that still use an alternative word for Donkey. I believe this particular word appears in several Christmas carols, and words like hell and damn in several others hymns as well. Many of you who were quick to condem the decision to use the poem, probably sing these same hymns and songs without thinking. I'm not judging, I do it too.

But, the context! These words weren't bad when the songs were written! Whatever. I'm not a fan of the "F-word" and I don't like the idea of it during a church service. That won't change. I probably would have been offended and left the service.

But, who cares? If I, as a Christian leave, what will I do? Walk from one church door to another? What about a nonbeliever who is stirred and wants to learn more about Jesus. This was apparently the church's priority and I wish them the best. I've never been to Scum, and I don't know that I ever will go, but if they are reaching out to the lost and teaching them what it means to be a true Christ-follower, I applaud their efforts and cast no stone.

"F-in" or "friggin" are joke words... they make people laugh, and, in the context of the poem, would have been completely inappropriate... I will say more in response to the second thread.

I think this discussion is great! I especially laughed at the fruit of the spirit lady who had the most accusatory and derogatory statements of anyone. Nice fruit you got there. but I have appreciated both sides of the discussion and thoughtful insight has been provided by both. It's a good thing if this article has made people think about their opinion of this subject and where they stand on it.
I think it's fair to say at this point that at most churches the f-word would not be acceptable but I would love to see people put as much thought, study, counsel and prayer into their regular worship as Scum did over this f-word incident. How often do you take the Lord's name in vain during worship because you are just mouthing the words to a worship song that you have heard a hundred times? Does that bring God glory and honor?

We are all Scum of the Earth and God loves us anyways.

I am new to this blog and am completely disgusted that this is what the topic is! There are people dying and going to hell and we have "culturally revelent" pastors trying to step over the line for what? creativity? My Bible tells me to not conform to the world--instead of trying to be the seeker sensitive church lets get back to the basics and realize that God wants all of us to become changed...a NEW creature in Christ...and than teach how to do that to our new christians! And stop dancing around sin and call it for what it is! I'm not saying the "F-bomb" is sin... I'm saying that we are getting awfully good at dancing around sin and becoming desensitized in the process!

Thanks Wetherby, you pretty much summed up my own feelings over the Comments column here.

I think it's good to have the discussion. However, in many ways, the discussion seems to be an excuse for many people to air their frustrations (on both sides of the argument). Many of the comments didn't even address directly the original posting or some of the comments made -- they just veered off into scenarios not even reflective of what happened with Mike and Mary Kay. Many comments were kind and compassionate, some were painfully scathing.

I think what hurts most is watching self-professed Christians treating each other as enemies rather than as believers in the same body. To address the general topic, I think there's a point to wanting to chase purity, in order to honor the holiness of God, and I also think there is a point about being completely honest about where one is at -- thus honoring the power of God as He redeems that experience.

I respect Christians who focus on either, because both are pursuits worthy of God. The un-love that can occur between sides when such a conflict ensues (because one side is unable or unwilling to imagine the other side's viewpoint and finds it easier to vilify it) is probably the worst part of a discussion like this.

From what I have understood, some of Paul's comments were sanitized from the street vernacular he actually used in the original text. Maybe I'm misinformed, but if Paul could reconcile his own occassional "vulgar" remark with theology of holiness, well, what's this argument actually about? Decorum? I'm not sure.

This doesn't seem to be a case of "end justifies the means," but a matter of whether a particular revelation of God's power has to be sanitized for public consumption.

Given the context of the Scum of the Earth congregation as I understand it and the context and content of Mary Kate's poetry, I would use the poem in all its rawness.

I direct the Field Education program at a Christian college and I had the privilege of reading the testimony of one student who had slipped to several degrees below bottom before she returned to God. In her journey she wrote some very beautiful and poignant poetry about her brokenness and despair. And it had *&$@& words in it that described the wrestling with God and her own self-loathing that she was allowing herself to pursue. Her writing was very raw but it was beautiful, truthful, and excruciatingly honest. I urged her to try and get it published as I thought it would perhaps help others -- like I those I think might be in the Scum congregation -- to watch a conversion in process. May Mary Kate's poetry have the same effect. And may we all thank God for his grace in our lives.

Shalom

I am refreshed and encouraged by Mary Kate's honesty and Mike's courage to bring this into the light. I discovered many years ago that God is much less concerned and offended by my honesty than He is by my hypocrisy. Aren't you struck by Job's audacity to insist God meet him "mano-e-mano" and explain His actions? If we could fully appreciate the cultural context in which Job's accusations were made, it'd be hard to not interpret it as blasphemous deserving the worse punishment possible. But I don't see God offended by Job's honesty, by his scathing rebukes and offensive language. I hope Mike and Mary Kate the best as they continue to cultivate an atmosphere of honesty and genuineness that often eludes Christian "fellowship."

With that said, I think our setting and context is very important. We all operate with some degree of propriety and protocal in every setting; like it or not. And it's not wrong. We are not islands unto ourselves. What we do and say most certainly affects everyone around us, and once something is said, we can't take it back; not even the "unintended consequences" of our actions.

Honesty is a wonderful virtue, but it is not the only virtue. Even truth must be spoken in love. And I believe that element of love is both objective and subjective. Meaning, the person speaking truth must truly love the person he/she is speaking to, and the words spoken must be an expression of love that ultimately seeks to edify the hearer. Even truth, spoken wrongly, is ineffective and potentially destructive.

I would hope that Mike and Mary Kate not be discouraged by the opinions expressed in this blog. I also hope that they would discover the mind of Christ as they seek to communicate to cynics & skeptics, as well as those who have been redeemed.

Being a Small Group leader, I get allot of opportunity to see various points of view. We have the liberal minded, and we have the conservative. We have contemporary people that know all too well what life "can be" like.

Although you may appear hip and cool and inviting to a certain group of people, you are also risking offending others to the core. Besides taking a chance on being offensive to the "usual crowd", you may also be offending new comers and seekers... who come to church to experience a certain amount of "churchiness". Do we really need more people walking around saying "they are nothing but hypocrits"?

People get very confused when we don't act as they expect. In my small groups I have had to curb the TALK of wine sometimes being present at evening groups. Our faith does not have a problem with wine, but... to some who perceive certain things, they would be offended. It is Ok to be there, but not to be bragged about. If people were looking for a "drinking" night they would do that with other friends. If they are looking at a church group, they expect certain behavior.

Same goes for any church service, let alone Christmas Eve. I look at this as akin to...
1 Corinthians 8:10
For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?

Likewise wouldn't those weak in faith feel it is Ok to use this word, that although is not the same as using our Lord's name in vain... is demeaning the act of intercourse that was created by God for a man and a woman to share in marriage.

Sorry, but I would say NO.

It is much harder to be honest with our brothers and sisters in Christ than it is to be honest with God. On my faith journey it has been very hard to learn how to discern the spirit, the message of a thing instead of getting hung up on the literal words. The first time someone told me to look at the spirit of a passage of scripture I was shocked. It had never occured to me. Let me be safe in the literal words I wanted to reply. But since then I have worked hard to be open to the spirit of something or someone instead of the outer layers. 'God show me the heart of the matter please' is often my cry.

I would have loved to have heard the poem. I would have been listening for the cry of the heart embodied in it. Listening for the places where the author's humanity and my own intersected. If the cry of our heart is expressed through some tough words.... I believe God so wants to hear the cry of our heart. He has no problem with discerning the context.

I wasn't raised in the church. Had no contact with Christians until I had little ones of my own. Had I thought I wouldn't have been acceptable to God until I cleaned up my language I would never have made that leap of faith that believed God loved me as is. The world until that point had reinforced over and over again the message that I was not acceptable as I was. It was only in God that I found a safe haven to be the messed up, broken woman I was. And God continues to be my safe place when I am broken and messed up.

I've been known to let a few "f bombs" loose in Sunday School. Sometimes my friends cringed. I decided on my own to stop doing it so much. I didn't want to offend people. But I did want to remain honest. Sometimes using an "f bomb" is a more honest cry of the heart than any pretty words could be. So I don't make any hard and fast rules about language. I try to be honest in what I do say though.

As a member of Scum I find all of the comments posted here very interesting. I'm not sure where to begin in response... I agree that the poem would not fit in in most churches. People would be more offended by the fact that there was a curse word in it than uplifted by the glory that it gave to God.
Yes, I have heard the poem. I am constantly amazed by Kate and all of the people I go to church with. The stories, songs, paintings and poems that I see and hear there bring tears to my eyes and prove that God truly does love us and can bring even the worst sinner out of the muck and mire.
I am also amazed by Mike. I have known him since he came to Denver in the mid 90's and I have seen how much God is a part of his life. After my father passed away he became a father figure to me; always checking in on me, asking about my dating life, how my walk with God is. He is a wonderful shepard.
This is the first time that I have heard how much effort he put into deciding to use the piece or not. I really appreciate how seriously he takes the leading of his flock, consulting the Word and praying continuously. He is always honest with us about his own struggles and he will always preach the hard word and not sugar coat things just to keep people coming. In other words, he'll tell us when we're going wrong.
But I digress. This was about what I would do if I were Mike. If it was my decision I hope I would put as much research, prayer and consideration into the decision as he did. I would also hope that I would have the support that he does from my fellow pastors who would prayerfully consider what advice they should give me. And lastly I would hope that I would be able to ask the foremost authority in New Testament studies (Dr. Blomberg) for his help. That's what I would do.
I praise the Lord everyday that there is a place like Scum. We're not perfect, but this is a place where people who don't fit in in the "regular" church, who are called "rotten", who are despised for the way they look, their past mistakes and struggles, the tax collectors and prostitutes, have a place to worship God with no condemnation. And "normal" people? They come too.
I could continue with more remarks regarding some of the view points toward us at Scum, but after prayerful consideration I felt it would not bring glory to God or make Jesus happy.
Peace and love to you all!

I think Romans 14:13 is relevant here. We should not pass judgement on each other, but we should also not put stumbling blocks in our brother's way. If the "f-bomb" causes some of the listeners to become distressed, and they won't even hear the rest of the poem. Mary Kate shouldn't be made to change her poem, but you should share with her that it may result in losing the listeners.

After reading Mary Kate's comment above, which brought tears to my eyes, I'd like to read the poem. What a powerful and expressive writer. Read some historic literature and you will find that once the "f-word" was more commonly used than it is today.

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Words, as powerful as they are, shift their meanings as the culture changes. Profanity is in the heart of the beholder.

I think Jesus would attend the SCUM church and listened to Mary Kate's poem and embraced her.

"If anyone is in Christ, he (she)is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come." 2Corinthians 5:17 If this young lady is truly a new creation, she should be living,acting and TALKING like one. I would encourage her to check her heart, pray, study her Word and seek God.
In case she's unaware what the "f" word stands for, it's an acronym for: fornication under consent (of the)king. Any Shepard who would allow it, needs to check his heart also.

Have you read Ezekial 23 lately?

Comparitively speaking, I think it's on the F-bomb level. I'll bet this NIV translation is a cleaned up translation of the Hebrew.

I wonder if Ezekial 23 passes the Ephesians 5 tests. Funny thing about Ezekial in this passage. He's a lot like Mary Kate — just quoting somebody else — namely God! Look at the context.

And we can't say the f-word in church or any place in this blog? Lighten up people.

Thanks for sharing this blog and thanks to Mike & Mary Kate for their comments.

Obviously, one wouldn't preach French or Hindi or Tagalog in an English speaking church. But what many fail to realize is that a "language" is a socially created category; in my honours linguistics degree (a previous life) languages were sometimes defined as "dialects with armies". What is a language? The socially dominant form of speaking in a particular area. I remember my grandmother describing Low German (Plautdietsch) as "slang" not a "language" because it was not written and because it did not have the high status of "High German". So to with English. There are many dialects of English, but one particular dialect has social status as the "language" (and the dialect with that status differs in England and Australia, etc.).

My point: in some English dialects "f***" and other words are not offensive cuss words as they would be in other dialects or in the main dialect (i.e., the one with status as the "language"). For most university students (well, at least the ones I knew) saying "f***" is like breathing--ubiquitous. They might still consider it a kind of "cuss word", but only because that's how the main dialect classifies it. In their lingo it does not carry the same baggage. (structurally and functionally, how can it be a cuss word if it's used with great frequency? Usually, it becomes a cuss only when combined with other words and used in specific contexts, but I digress) I would hardly offend these people by saying (certain words). So, really, it depends on the audience.

Now, warning the audience on the "night of" is hardly fair. If I've geared myself up to go to church, I don't want to have to step outside and ruin the flow of my experience and time with G. So, I think an earlier warning would have been appropriate. If that warning raised a firestorm, well, doesn't that suggest who your audience is? Likewise, if it's not even a blip on the audience's radar, same point.

cheers,
J

Further, different thought, in response to "What next, a cross in urine to illustrate our contempt for God before we came to him? Surely we can express ourselves better when the redemptive blood of Jesus begins to flow through our veins."

The cross in urine reference is likely to art work by Andres Serrano, 1989, photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. Given that artist's adherence to viewer response, the primacy of the viewer's response is intended by the artist to be the key to valid, personal interpretation. So, while some may see (it) as a blasphemous denigration of Christ, I actually interpreted it as a metaphor of Christ, the holy God, descending into a dirty sinful world and redeeming it by His incarnation rather than being brought down by it.

cheers,
J

Let the Scripture speak for itself on this issue. "Let no unwholesome thing come out of your mouth," or "but in everything whether in word or deed, do all to the glory of God," or "speak to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs singing and making melody in your heart to God."

There is a difference between allowing someone freedom to express themselves to God in private moments and on the other hand during a worship service.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right not a biblical one. We cannot be so concerned that she might fall away from the faith if we do not allow her to use provanity that we compromise the worship service.

If she cannot express herself without using expletives, which are the lowest form of communication, then she needs to spend more time refining her style of writing. Pastors have to be discerning and it is rarely used spiritual gift these days.

the word is also an acronymn for 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'

with that said i would not like to hear the poem read with the word present. i believe that truly if she wants to get her point across the word can be changed. to honour God and glorify HIM in all we do not the poem, the matter if it is right or wrong to read it in church or outside of church, BUT is HE GLORIFIED. is HE pleased with what HE hears from her lips as she reads it. we as christians know HE knows her heart and if it is in the place (that she speaks of as well) HE will be please with the word left out!

Thanks Pastor Mike and Mary Kate for subjecting yourselves to all of our lofty opinions. Deepest gratitude for your examples of healing and healer. Blessings!

That whole acronym idea is a myth. Do an etymology search on the internet. It is much more persuasive to use facts to prove a point that to use old wives' tales.

It's hard to not seem biased or judgmental when writing on this discussion, so I won't insult intellegence by trying.

I've attended S.O.E.T.C., and it is the #1 reason I wish to move back to Denver; not snow, not beautiful mountains and summers, not boarding, not LoDo. I've visited churches all over the country, no place on Earth is willing to get their hands dirty doing the work of the Father like Scum. (I met a pastor who was a former Morman in Ogden, Utah who came close though.)

I'm not going to say that all congregations should be doing it like Scum. That would be silly, obviously we all have our place in the Body.

Originally the question posed was:

-----------------------------------------
What was he to do?

What would you do?
-----------------------------------------

What was he to do? Well, exactly what he did. He did not make a rogue decision, he consulted people of biblical wisdom I could not even dream to match. (And i have the grades to prove it.) With guided wisdom from people other than himself, and his own considerable heart & knoweldge of the congregation he made the correct decision for the Family of believers. (keep in mind this is the congregation God has clearly GIVEN HIM - as He and the council formed the chruch from literally nothing and to this day support a congregation of 200-300 on a budget which other churches that size would laugh at.) He sought what was best for the Church in the opportunity given him, and Mike did what was best for the church. I don't know about you, but from what I read in the Old Testament, that's called "Doing the Will of God."

What would you do? Sad to say, I probably wouldn't have been wise enough at the time to seek wisdom as Mike did. Maybe now I realize I don't know anything, but probably not then.

Thank you Mike for all you do. Much love,
Kyle.

This is a great discussion.
It is truly refreshing to read how Mike behaved in a Christ-like manner instead of casting her aside just as a lot churches would.
But, as always, it is wearisome to see just how harsh and judgmental a lot "christians" can and will be.

Good luck to you, Mary Kate.

Busted. The f-bomb is NOT an acronym for "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge". It is NOT an acronym for anything (there are several urban myths out there).

The first recorded usage of the word appears to be from a poem composed in a mixture of Latin and English sometime before 1500. William Dunbar used it in his 1503 poem "Brash of Wowing". The authoritative Oxford English Dictionary is quite cautious in providing an etymology for this word. English is a Germanic language and the f-bomb likely derives from some Germanic word. Also, don't forget that parts of the U.K. were conquered by Norwegians, Vikings, etc. It is a this point that things get a little murky. There is the Middle Dutch fokken, meaning "to thrust, copulate with"; Norwegian dialect fukka: "to copulate"; and Swedish dialect focka, meaning "to strike, push, copulate", not to mention the German "ficken". Some scholars derive the word from the latin futuo, others from the Indo-European root peuk, meaning "to prick".

Which all goes back to my earlier point about who does this word offend. 700 or 800 years ago, the f-bomb would be likely have been the word used in everyday speech. Then, as is common for languages around the word, any word associated with sex or elimination of feces or urine becomes impolite and is replace by a euphemism, which in turn becomes impolite and is replaced by another . . . etc. So, the f-bomb is not inherently offensive, it depends on the language (dialect) and the AUDIENCE. God does not have an eternal list of cuss words that has existed for all time and that makes those words a cuss whenever (i.e., since the world began) and wherever they are used.

Further point. Sarcasm does have its place, especially where one is taking pomposity down a notch. However, sarcasm is inappropriate--especially in a public forum--where it is given in response to a heartfelt action by a fellow Christian who is seeking to follow Christ. None of us have all the light or a perfectly clear glass to see through. In public forum, such besmirching of a fellow Christian just leads to comments like those from my father-in-law two nights ago who sees that kind of behaviour in the church his wife takes him to and calls Christians hypocrites.

I am wondering why all the fuss around her reading it at all? Did she enter into some kind of contractual performance agreement and she now must be allowed to read? Why not just kindly wait? Maybe next Christmas she'll have a completely different perspective and you'll save her from any regret she may eventually have (or resentment over being allowed) ?

I remember the words of my friend Jeff who once told me, "It must be wrong, otherwise I wouldn't be spending so much effort trying to justify it."

The comments posted about this article amazed me even more so than the article itself did. I'm not familiar with SCUM but from what I've heard it is unlike most of our churches are. And with that in mind, how can we put ourselves in Mike's shoes and decide what he should or should not have done?

I've seen many situations where God has called someone to do something and other Christians looked at the person like they were insane. God doesn't always act in the way that we think that he should. I'm not saying whether I think Mike was right or wrong. There are good arguments for both sides. However, I have my own group that God has entrusted to me to lead. So rather than argue over whether reading the poem uncensored was right or wrong, I'm going to do what God tells ME to do. God will hold us responsible for the flock he has placed under us...and he'll reward us for obedience. So either way, I think God has this situation under control, and he doesn't need our input.

NO WAY! I am a mother of a 8 year old and I tell him that there is no need for that kind of talk and I don't use it and neither should he. If he did hear that in church he might think it's ok and it is not. The Bible says in EPH. 4:29-30 "Do not let any unholesome talk come out of your mouth."

I tend to think of gathering on Sunday or when ever as a macro of the family. if it does not work at home in the smallest expression of the chruch then maybe it would not work when the church gathers in largers veneus. Do you think that Jesus taught the disciples any manners and how to speak and things like that

I think he most probably did..

There are some things worth going to the wire for and some things that aren't worth the fuss.

If most of the previous contributors were in the congregation when the poem were read the pastor would go down in history as 'The Man Who Destroyed Christmas'. However, each congregation is different. If it were me and I wasn't sure whether it would be appreciated I would get together a small cross-section and ask them their opinion allowing them to hear the poem first.

I'm quite certain that when people pray to God and insert expletives, because that's just the way they talk normally, that he doesn't cover his ears in horror and consign them to hell.

We all live with bad language in various parts of our lives. I like most wouldn't like it in Church - but I wouldn't let it ruin my worship or my day if did happen to get in some how.

God bless all posters.

Well I don't think the use of the word, which to most people today is vulger regardless of the history of it, would be appropriate in church, much less in any public setting from a Christian.
I understand the need to express our struggles and previous issues but how detailed or shocking do you need to be to do so? In my life before Christ I did a lot of foul things, thought foul things and said foul things but now as a new creature I don't desire to do so for the most part. For the parts I stuggle with I confess in prayer to God, I seek accountability and read the Bible. I just can't imagine purposely using langauge that obviously offends? What is next, an acted out violent mugging or murder to generate emotions that this is wrong but it's how "I was"?
When I hear testimonies of the redeeming power of God in people's lives I don't need to hear all the vulgarity associated with those previous actions or deeds to understand or feel their graditude to God for bringing them (me too) out of darkness. I don't need to get drunk to describe the fact I was a drunk.
In everything we do we should honor God...if you need that type of expression in your service, oh well I guess it isn't as vulger to you as it seems to most of us. So if that word isn't what is? Where do you draw the line or do you?

What an amazing story this is! I can't help but wonder what I would do under the same circumstances. My church too, is one that is open to self-expression and in fact, is lay-led by members of the congregation three weeks out of the month.

Although we have not often had a language challenge such as this at the pulpit, we have struggled with people feeling led to share, but without the ability to clearly speak those ideas. Another challenge in our group, has been the "time element". Asking a congregation that is used to a service that in total, is one hour, to sit through a rambling sermon for an entire hour in and of itself, can be challenging as well.

We have struggled with the dual aspect of this issue.
1. The Spiritual aspect of allowing anyone to speak that truly feels the call, (honoring that person's spiritual path) and
2. The fairness of subjecting a congregation to an uncomfortable (and possibly unfulfilling) Sunday worship hour.

However, if someone chose to share this type of wording at my church, as stewards of this religious community, it would behoove us to consider both sides of the issue first - so I would like to commend this pastor for doing so.

First, we need to consider the person who feels called to the pulpit. Second, we need to consider those sitting in the "audience".

Although the word at question here is one that I used in the past, it is not one that I (personally) would feel particularly happy about hearing from the pulpit. Most especially on a holiday where many more people tend to attend services and guests will include family members, friends & CHILDREN.

Would hearing it cause me to leave the church? Absolutely NOT! Would it cause me concern over whether that person should be speaking up there? Yes, I think it would.

Although the word fits the story, sometimes we must rearrange our wording to fit the audience, and I would think that THIS is a perfect opportunity to minister to the person at issue here.

A chance to help her to understand that sometimes our own Spiritual "lesson" is learning to recognize that not ALL changes to our words, thoughts or feelings have to be considered as a personal affront on the person herself. Rather, this could be considered as a stepping stone on our spiritual journey and toward our spiritual growth.

I believe that this discussion, if done privately and in a loving manner, is more of an OPPORTUNITY for this pastor to minister to this precious Child of God. I so wish that I could read her poem. I'll bet it is very touching, even in it's rawest form.

This may also be the author’s opportunity to attempt at new words so that MANY HEARTS may take in the meaning without missing the intent due to the language barrier. In it’s raw form, I can’t help but wonder how many people might miss the gift of this person’s talent, heart and life lessons. A translation without the “F-bomb” could be thought of more like translating English to German for a German audience. An opportunity to learn how to communicate with EVERYONE, not just a small portion of the congregation that might not be offended by the choice of words.

Blessings to all!

Nope... sorry, I don't think using the Fword is necessary. We all know what it means and everyone knows it's generally used to express something very strong (and usually unlikeable). I can understand new Christians still speaking like this for a little while but there should be 'teaching' given that profanity leads to further ungodliness - not that I'd put it so formally. (Sorry, can't remember the verse that teaching comes from.)
All that aside, good on you for doing your best for such a needy congregation.

i do so wish that i could follow this line of conversation with a red pen, circling and commenting. i do attend scum. i am a poet. i heard kate's poem for the first time at a poetry reading where i was also reading. it cracked open something inside me. even though i was unaware that such a heated debate was in session, the poem has stayed with me since that time. it has stayed with me because i don't curse and yet i was changed by the poem. it has stayed with me because of the content and power of the poem, not the diction.

the reasons i don't curse are biblical; the bible forbids cursing in anger, in opposition to someone, to call someone a fool or against God. this leaves cursing in quoting as the only viable option. kate's poem expresses how her experience intersected with that of the boy she was working alongside. kate's willingness not to censor the boy showed the congregation her respect for his experience. mike's willingness not to censor kate showed the same thing. he couldn't say, i respect your experience, am uplifted by it but want you to say it in an acceptable way.

i went to a christian international boarding school for three years. my senior year of highschool, at a school retreat, a young man got up during open mic time to confess of a problem that he had with pornography. within ten minutes he was joined by easily sixty other young men crying and praying for one another. they asked for forgiveness from one another, their girlfriends, sisters and from god. the student body was moved to confession and prayer. the administration swept in like bouncers, letting all of us know that only acceptable sins would be confessed. at scum, and i pray at other churches also, we shudder to think that only people with spotless testimonies would be allowed to share. the contents of almost all of our lives and testimonies and spiritual experiences are r-rated and yet they are considered edifying to the church body.
i think that mike took the same steps in making his decision that he has taught his congregation to take in making any difficult decision. he has taught us to form our opinions on the basis of scripture and spiritual council. it is clear that the people with whom mike discussed didn't just nod and smile and side with him. they researched and discussed. i do agree that maybe mike could have read the poem to a cross section of people in the church about a week before but, knowing that congregation, and reading the posts that come from those people, i think the outcome would have been the same. i think that all the proper precautions were taken. that seems evident in the way that the most offended people are those that do not attend scum at all. the people most offended have never heard the poem nor met its poet.

on a side little note: i don't really understand why certain people are so upset that the poem would have been read on christmas eve of all nights. at scum, i don't really see there being a massive difference between christmas services and services the rest of the year. if i can't be excited about christ's birth in april, why would i be excited about it in december? in the same way, why be able to read an "explicit" poem any other night of the year but this one? discussions about the meaning of the word seem to be completely unecessary. it was not used in reference to the sexual act. actually i think that's probably the least often used meaning of that word these days.

man i wish i had the guts to just come out and type the word we're starring out and dancing around. if i did though, it would be to irritate and shock, no other reason. it wouldn't be right for me to do. do you think that it would be acceptable for the poem to be reprinted here? i wonder. if we cannot be honest before god, who sees those words appear in our hearts in all their versions (regardless of what we wear, write or where we worship), who can he be honest before?

(isn't it interesting how much mike trusts us to post apropriately on this site? us without much training and with much emotion. he trusts us to let the "christian church of greater america" hear what we have to say on the subject. he is confident enough in us and in having made the right decision that he is willing to announce this website from the pulpit and get us all nice and involved.)

if we can chip away at the veneer of western christianity with genuine honesty and mutual respect, so be it. if a congregation's faith in its pastor and its respect for the lord can be shaken and tainted by one word, it was doomed to fall. that has not been the case at scum of the earth church.

Interesting discussion...and surprising in some ways.

It amazes me whenever people seem to think that using expletives is somehow more "honest" and "more real", and that God is mysteriously distant from Christmas Eve services that would be permissable to be shown on broadcast TV, or that would not offend mothers with young children.

I can be honest and real and pleasing to God without resorting to profanities, thank you very much. Perhaps saying that seems very politically incorrect. Perhaps that makes me less real and godly and pleasing to God in the minds of some.

But I don't think that my lack of use of "F-bombs" in any way hinders me from bringing pleasure to God. A lot of other things may, but I don't think being a bit prudish about my use of language is going to keep me from glorifying God.

Personally, I wonder why anyone described as "just re-entering the church" and in a "fragile state of her faith" is given such a public platform in a church service. I'm not saying that only those who are firmly established in the faith should ever be allowed to say anything in a church meeting; however, I think the Biblical cautions against new converts, etc., in leadership positions should also cause us to carefully consider who we feature prominently in our church services. As someone who has been in the church all my life, I could tell you some real horror stories about those who have been pushed into the church limelight prematurely. A few "f-bombs" during church services would have been nothing compared to what has happened in some churches as a result of putting the church's stamp of approval on the words and actions of those who were not ready for public ministry.

I also speak from the perspective of someone who was encouraged to give my testimony publicly when it was waaaay premature to do so, when I was still "in process" and should have been lovingly encouraged to mature before taking on a public speaking role. If only the pastor involved had had the wisdom to keep me quiet...

the F word is only a word. do you think hearing the F word will cause you to be bad? i think if it would effect your walk with Christ what so ever...then you're not really walking with Him... i just said the word and God still is wild about me! what do you think about that... ohh you just thought about praying for me huh?

I have a feeling that a God who was willing to enter Hell for our sakes is not quite so concerned about the use of an off-color word in church as we are. In my experience, when people react that way, it usually means that they need to get out of the church and go hang around with some non-believers. Even for myself, when I start getting overly concerned about my own holiness, it usually means that I am totally out of touch with a broken and hurting world, one that desperately needs the healing touch of Jesus, a world in too much pain to even ponder the 'appropriateness' of the f word.

Bless you Mary-Kate for putting yourself into such a world, and Bless you, Mike for wanting to reach that world. In reality, The f-word is only there, present in your poem, because you were willing to take your light out of a bushel and go put it into that scary world that most of us shy away from.

A friend of mine told me about this article. She knew I used to go to church there (year and a half ago). I've read all of the comments, and I'm not sure many of the people who commented understood a few things about this church. Let me just write some things for clarification, though they've mostly been mentioned already.

1) The people who attend Scum of the Earth are not the types of people you would find at most churches. As such, many conversations occur before or after church between church members that might include the f-word.

2) There was one family with young children who may have been attending at that time, but the parents were certainly not the type to shelter their children from course language. I don't necessarily agree with their decision in that matter, but I am not the parent.

3) There is only one comment (that was so credited) from a seminary professor on this article. He indicates that use of this particular word is not inherently sinful. Eisegesis of Ephesians not withstanding.

I would also like to say a bit about the character of the principles involved in this story, as they have both been subject to some rather severe treatment in previous comments.

Kate Makkai- I first came across when visiting a poetry slam. I wanted to tell her she should have her poetry published in a Christian magazine, but I wasn't sure any of them would take it. And not because of f-bombs, because it was honest. A few years later she ends up going to my church. If there had been no f-bombs involved, I would have thought something was tragically wrong. I hope most people get the chance to know someone as pierced by the love of God as this woman is.

Mike Sares- is certainly not a hireling, nor is he terribly concerned with being relevant. In fact, I think he's as opposite from a hireling as anyone I've ever met. For one, hirelings make a decent wage. Secondly, hirelings don't hold people accountable. Let's just put it this way, if I'm doing something I shouldn't be, Mike is the last person I want to talk to. Because I know he'll change my mind about it. And it's not for a lack of pastoral sorts in my life.

And finally, I was there that night. It was one of those moments you wish you could put in a bottle and show everyone and say "this is why I am a Christian."

I just finished reading every single comment on this post.

The initial question was "how would you handle this in your church?"

Not "how would you recriminate the pastor of Scum o' the Earth with your "moral clarity?"

A little FYI:
The F word used to be a polite euphemism, so the whole "no place in a decent society" etc. stuff is naive and kind of silly.

Whoever said we have a decent society in the first place?

What we have is middle class values posing as Christianity and embarking on a bourgeouis, Victorian era project of denial.