{"id":210,"date":"2015-03-01T22:26:06","date_gmt":"2015-03-02T03:26:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/practicalmattersjournal.ecdsdev.org\/?p=210"},"modified":"2015-10-08T21:12:54","modified_gmt":"2015-10-09T01:12:54","slug":"sweating-spitting-cursing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/2015\/03\/01\/sweating-spitting-cursing\/","title":{"rendered":"Sweating, Spitting, and Cursing: Intimations of the Sacred"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Download PDF:\u00a0McCray, Sweating Spitting Cursing<\/a><\/h4>\n
\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n
\n
Holiness does not always manifest itself in pristine ways. Sometimes profane vehicles open us to the holy. This essay explores three such occasions that surface in preaching. First, I consider the sweating preacher. Drawing on Christian spirituality, African-American preaching traditions, and performance studies, I reflect on the phenomenon of \u201choly sweat.\u201d Then, I reflect on the way passion might increase a preacher\u2019s speech rate and result in inadvertent spitting. I link this unconscious spitting with ecstasy and with the unmanageability of the gospel. I give more attention to cursing. After reflecting briefly on the history of cursing, I discuss a few ways cursing might serve the ends of preaching. Cursing presents special discernment issues for the preacher so I comment on key steps in this discernment process. I conclude that sweating, spitting and cursing work in different ways to unsettle and expand tidy understandings of holiness.<\/em><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Glimpses of the sacred come in unexpected ways.\u00a0 Sometimes our understandings of holiness only emerge as superficial notions are interrupted and peeled back.\u00a0 This essay examines three such moments that arise during sermons when the word seems to come from another realm, one that is not bound by contemporary Western notions of propriety.\u00a0 On these occasions, the congregation witnesses the \u201csounding of a deep holiness that cuts below our usual management of truth and speaks from a holiness that stands outside our management.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 This strange holiness appears when a preacher sweats, spits, or curses in an effort to reveal the extravagance of the gospel. In distinct ways, each of these moments carries a solemnity that helps listeners re-imagine the character of holy speech.<\/p>\n

When a Preacher Sweats<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A sacred moment sometimes arises in the midst of a sermon when a preacher is so connected to listeners and deep in thought that beads of sweat form on the preacher\u2019s brow.\u00a0 This kind of sweat cannot be easily attributed to nervousness, hot lights, or heavy vestments.\u00a0 Instead, this sweat is prompted by the intensity of the moment.\u00a0 The gravity of the moment presses on the preacher and draws a truth out of the preacher\u2019s body.<\/p>\n

This \u201choly sweat\u201d has been read as a material sign of grace in Christian spirituality.\u00a0 Catherine of Siena alludes to holy sweat in The Dialogue<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Bring, then, your tears and your sweat, you and my other servants.\u00a0 Draw them from the fountain of my divine love and use them to wash the face of my bride.\u00a0 I promise you that thus her beauty will be restored.\u00a0 Not by the sword or by war or by violence will she regain her beauty, but through peace and through the constant and humble prayers and sweat and tears poured out by my servants with eager desire.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

Catherine explains that sweat is a sign of desire as well as union.\u00a0 Perspiration seems to authenticate her yearning for God:<\/p>\n

As she felt her emotions so renewed in the eternal Godhead, the force of her spirit made her body break into a sweat.\u00a0 For her union with God was more intimate than was the union between her soul and her body.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

Perhaps Catherine intends to elicit an image of Jesus sweating in Gethsemane.[4]<\/a> \u00a0Either way, sweat serves as a material sign of intense spiritual longing.<\/p>\n

Similarly, American Pentecostals demonstrate a high regard for holy sweat during the early twentieth century.\u00a0 According to R. Marie Griffith, Pentecostal evangelists would commonly receive letters from Christians who were seeking healing.\u00a0 After reading a letter, the evangelist would pray passionately over a handkerchief, perhaps until sweat formed on the forehead.\u00a0 Then the evangelist would wipe his or her brow with the handkerchief and send it to the petitioner as a material sign of prayer.\u00a0 This \u201cprayer cloth\u201d served as a tangible reminder of the intercessions that were made on behalf of the recipient.\u00a0 Further, prayer cloths were understood to be \u201csaturated with a kind of power through these signs of intensive prayer.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

The sweaty handkerchief also appears in some African-American preaching traditions.\u00a0 The intensity of the delivery of the sermon can leave a preacher soaked with sweat.\u00a0 A handkerchief is a fixture for preachers who \u201choop\u201d or move into an impassioned chant.\u00a0 Hooping has both linguistic and performative elements.\u00a0 Teresa Fry Brown explains:<\/p>\n

There may be vocal gymnastics that require gasping for air, panting, long pauses, or rapid speech; or in some cases, the voice quality becomes so harsh that the natural voice is just a memory.\u00a0 The voice runs the entire tonic scale.\u00a0 .\u00a0 . Hooping is physical, and the preacher, at times, is drenched in perspiration.\u00a0 There is a curious ritual of immediately wrapping one\u2019s neck with a large handkerchief or towel or putting on a coat \u201cto keep the heat.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Here, sweat functions as a nonverbal cue in the pattern of call and response, and underscores the preacher\u2019s exertion.[7]<\/a> \u00a0The grand struggle between human finitude and the extravagance of the gospel shows up in the preacher\u2019s sweat.\u00a0 The congregation gets a visible, tangible, and even odoriferous sign that something is at stake in this moment of proclamation.<\/p>\n

Yet, the \u201csweat of the \u2018heart\u2019\u201d has the most weight in the pulpit.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 Sweat can speak just as powerfully in the meeker, more soft-spoken preacher for whom a grand gesture or booming voice would seem inauthentic.\u00a0 With these preachers, sweat is not a strictly physical phenomenon.\u00a0 As one scholar explains:<\/p>\n

Sweat is not only the 20 percent physical, but encompasses the 80 percent mental that lies behind the obvious physical.\u00a0 The 80 percent mental dimension of sweat is the subtle domain of inner activation, i.e., the flame of an active, inner, vibratory perceptivity and engagement.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Of course, if the preacher is not sufficiently tied to his or her message, \u201cvibratory perceptivity and engagement\u201d are likely out of reach.\u00a0 If the message makes no claim on Christian life and offers no alternative to a normative view of reality, it will be hard for the preacher to break into a holy sweat.\u00a0 Holy sweat is the fruit of passionate engagement with God, listeners, and the moment.\u00a0 Holy sweat plays a signifying role for listeners and points to divine encounter.<\/p>\n

When a Preacher Spits<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

One might easily conclude that spitting can only serve a pejorative purpose in Christian liturgy.\u00a0 On the rare occasion when spitting appears, it usually carries derogatory meaning. For example, in some Greek Orthodox baptismal rites, godparents spit upon Satan at the invitation of the officiating priest.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 This spitting serves as a renunciation of evil and a symbol of fidelity to Christ.\u00a0 In contrast, spitting that is not deliberate and happens spontaneously in the natural course of conversation is more of a nuisance than an offense.<\/p>\n

John Wesley frowns on the nuisance of spitting in his penny tract, Directions Concerning Pronunciation and Gesture<\/em>.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Wesley cautions preachers against \u201cthe odious custom\u201d of spitting during sermons and urges preachers to minimize the distraction for listeners if spitting cannot be avoided entirely.[12]<\/a> In his zeal to ensure listeners\u2019 comfort, Wesley closes off the possibility that spitting might disclose the holy.\u00a0 Yet, when spontaneous sprays occur during preaching, listeners get a reminder of the relationship between preaching and ecstasy:<\/p>\n

The origins of prophecy are in ecstasy.\u00a0 The root meaning of to prophesy<\/em> may be \u2018to slaver,\u2019 \u2018to foam at the mouth,\u2019 hence the utterances of one whose sensibilities the spirit has completely alienated from civilized life and discourse.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

As speech speeds up and passion is stirred, the preacher spits and pierces a social boundary.\u00a0 The utter lack of self-consciousness that usually accompanies the spittle is telling.\u00a0 \u00a0This lack of self-consciousness suggests the preacher has somehow become lost in the Word or captivated by its transformative power.\u00a0 Social propriety is dethroned for a moment and gives way to a greater power.\u00a0 \u00a0Further, the invisible bonds that buckle the sermon genre are revealed.\u00a0 The sermon is loosed from the mores of polite and respectable speech, and begins to serve a higher call.<\/p>\n

\"pulpit
Pulpit at Saints Peter and Paul Church in Duszniki Zdr\u00f3j, Poland. Photograph courtesy of The Right Reverend John Harrower, Bishop,
Anglican Diocese of Tasmania, Australia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The urgency of this call is vividly reflected in the pulpit architecture at Saints Peter and Paul Church in Duszniki Zdr\u00f3j, Poland.\u00a0 One of the pulpits is shaped like the giant fish that swallowed Jonah.\u00a0 Dark green and rather ominous, the fish appears to writhe and its tail curls up in a grand loop against the marble wall of the church.\u00a0\u00a0 The preacher stands inside the fish\u2019s open mouth surrounded by teeth and a giant pink tongue.\u00a0 Symbolically, the listeners are faced with a message and a messenger that are being spat out of the fish\u2019s mouth.\u00a0 If a preacher is bent on proclaiming a domesticated word, the architecture intervenes and screams about the gospel\u2019s tendency to shock and disorient listeners.\u00a0 Holiness is imagined as a wild and strange thing, defying any force that would dare attempt to confine it.<\/p>\n

This wild notion of holiness is elicited when a preacher spits.\u00a0 The gospel proves scandalously unmanageable.\u00a0 A key part of the outrage rests in the idea that God\u2019s holy word rides through a human mouth.\u00a0 Human teeth, tongues, and saliva play a central role in gospel proclamation. Spittle reminds listeners of this scandal and points to the strange ways of God.<\/p>\n

The incarnational aspect of preaching might be more palatable if the human body were more easily tamed.\u00a0 Yet as Judith Butler explains, the body always adds layers of meaning to a speaker\u2019s words and exceeds a speaker\u2019s intent.[14]<\/a>\u00a0 Butler calls this unpredictable quality the \u201cexcess\u201d of speech.[15]<\/a> When a preacher spits, this \u201cexcess\u201d of speech materializes and listeners encounter a God made known through weak and profane human flesh.\u00a0 In other words, the weak and foolish things of the world make God known rather than human perfection.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n

When a Preacher Curses<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The veil of the sacred is also pierced on a linguistic level when a preacher curses. \u00a0Cursing and foul words are broadly considered taboo in preaching despite the fact that the Bible is a \u201cstorehouse of curses and strong language.\u201d[17]<\/a> In the strict sense, cursing is synonymous with malediction and is an appeal to a higher power to damn or harm another person. [18]<\/a>\u00a0 This \u201cformal cursing\u201d was originally the purview of priests and prophets.[19]<\/a> Over time, however, cursing was understood more broadly to describe the \u201cunsayable,\u201d whether dirty or religious.[20]<\/a>\u00a0 The dirty usually entails the sexual and the excremental, or those things that are concealed by clothing, privacy or through disposal.[21]<\/a> In contrast, religious swearing usually involves using God\u2019s name as part of an effort to convey shock, frustration, or outrage.<\/p>\n

Both forms of cursing have tremendous plasticity because profanity is an unstable linguistic category.[22]<\/a>\u00a0 Words like \u201csh*t\u201d and \u201cf*ck\u201d are generally considered profane in contemporary American English.\u00a0 These words were similarly profane for the Romans, but had fairly mundane meanings in medieval England.[23]<\/a>\u00a0 A heron was innocently called a \u201cshiterow,\u201d and a kestrel was matter-of-factly named a \u201cwindfucker.\u201d[24]<\/a> Other wildlife, plants, and city streets were similarly named with terms that would be profane in contemporary American English.\u00a0 These terms would not register as obscene or amount to cursing again until the end of the 19th<\/sup> century.[25]<\/a>\u00a0 Instead, coarse language in medieval England included oaths or forms of language that inspired people to sin.[26]<\/a>\u00a0 The most taboo phrases involved religious swearing because there was such high regard for the holy.\u00a0 Exclaiming, \u201cBy God\u2019s bones!\u201d or \u201cChrist\u2019s nails!\u201d were understood to have a literal power to physically harm God.[27]<\/a>\u00a0 Whether religious or dirty, cursing continues to play a critical role in American speech.\u00a0 As one scholar puts it, curse words \u201cdo what no other English words can.\u201d[28]<\/a> In the toolbox of language, curse words are the \u201chammer.\u201d[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

Preachers often try to mine the power of foul language while negotiating taboos at the same time.\u00a0 Many resort to light swearing (\u201cdang,\u201d \u201cdarn,\u201d \u201check,\u201d and \u201cjeez\u201d).\u00a0 Others turn to euphemism.[30]<\/a>\u00a0 The euphemists can thank Thomas Bowdler and his daughter Elizabeth for paving the way.\u00a0 They \u201cbowdlerized\u201d major works to make them more palatable for polite society.[31]<\/a>\u00a0 For example, the frank sexual imagery of the Song of Songs is softened in Elizabeth\u2019s commentary.\u00a0 She refers to a \u201cbridal chariot\u201d in lieu of the \u201cbed.\u201d[32]<\/a> \u00a0The Bowdlers might contend that euphemism is employed in biblical texts as well.\u00a0 Abraham, for instance, requires his servant to swear on his \u201cthigh\u201d rather than make direct reference to male genitals. [33]<\/a>\u00a0 The author of Job repeatedly uses the word \u201cbless\u201d as a euphemism for \u201ccurse\u201d in order to heighten the tension of one of the most blasphemous lines in the Bible, \u201cCurse God and die.\u201d[34]<\/a>\u00a0 Euphemism clearly has its place.<\/p>\n

Yet, in many cases euphemism can obscure the holy rather than reveal it.\u00a0 As one scholar explains, euphemism is the \u201copposite of swearing.\u201d[35]<\/a>\u00a0 Profane language carries \u201can emotional charge derived from direct reference to taboo objects, orifices, and actions.\u201d[36]<\/a>\u00a0 Euphemisms tend to soften this charge and prevent a strong emotional response.[37]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0These \u201canti-obscenities\u201d can result from the use of \u201cindirection, Latinization, or employing French.\u201d[38]<\/a>\u00a0 Whatever the form, euphemism can easily undermine a preacher\u2019s attempt to disclose God\u2019s action in the world.\u00a0 Unless a preacher is employing a euphemism as litotes (ironic understatement) or incorporating another rhetorical strategy, a limp vision of the holy is likely to follow.\u00a0\u00a0 When a preacher resists the urge to self-censor, a curious thing can happen.\u00a0 A curse word can actually function as a husk for the sacred.\u00a0 Typically, there are three dimensions that work together when this happens.<\/p>\n

First, the preacher taps into a different spiritual realm.\u00a0 Curse words have power because they consist of words that have been \u201cdriven underground.\u201d[39]<\/a> Part of this power stems from the fact that curse words are iterations of the spell and the charm\u2014 words that \u201cinvoke a higher power to change the world, or support the truthfulness of a claim.\u201d[40]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a0Preachers break open this hidden arena when they use language that carries a \u201ccurious convergence of the high and the low, the sacred and the profane.\u201d[41]<\/a> The sermon proves to be a container that can bear this breadth and depth of content.\u00a0 Aspects of truth that were deemed too hardcore for formal worship are suddenly brought in and put in conversation with the gospel. No longer is the sermon simply a polite speech about God\u2019s action in the world.\u00a0 Cursing, then, disrupts tidy religious ritual and facilitates an experience of the gospel.<\/p>\n

One could think of this experience of the gospel as an \u201cepistemological crisis, a crisis in the way one sees and perceives.\u201d[42]<\/a> J. Louis Martyn links epistemological crisis with a Pauline experience of the gospel.\u00a0 For an exemplar, Martyn turns to Flannery O\u2019Connor.\u00a0 Her \u201capocalyptic fiction\u201d works by revealing false perception and following it with \u201can irruption that radically alters vision.\u201d[43]<\/a> The \u201cinvading power of grace\u201d emerges with this altered vision and the audience witnesses the \u201caction of grace in territory held largely by the devil.\u201d[44]<\/a> In other words, a new spiritual realm is opened for the audience.<\/p>\n

Ushering listeners into this experience demands a full spectrum of language forms, including curse words.\u00a0 Curse words have a visceral quality that is critical to truth-telling.\u00a0 Toni Morrison alludes to this revelatory aspect of language.\u00a0 When asked what was distinctive about her fiction and what made it good, Morrison responds:<\/p>\n

The language, only the language.\u00a0 The language must be careful and must appear effortless.\u00a0 It must not sweat.\u00a0 It must suggest and be provocative at the same time.\u00a0 It is the thing that black people love so much- the saying of words, holding them on the tongue, experimenting, with them, playing with them.\u00a0 It\u2019s a love, a passion.\u00a0 Its function is like a preacher\u2019s:\u00a0 to make you stand up out of your seat, make you lose yourself and hear yourself.\u00a0 The worst of all possible things that could happen would be to lose that language.\u201d[45]<\/a><\/p>\n

Morrison underscores the value of pure language.\u00a0 Here, the term \u201cpure\u201d is synonymous with \u201cundiluted\u201d rather than \u201cchaste.\u201d\u00a0 The Apostle Paul seems to search for this kind of purity when he speaks of regarding his former achievements as \u201crubbish\u201d or \u201cdung\u201d in order to gain Christ.[46]<\/a>\u00a0 The disciples also seek this kind of linguistic purity when they first hear the Good News of the resurrection.\u00a0 The resurrection is unbelievable to them and they call the message leiros <\/em>or \u201cnonsense.\u201d\u00a0 Anna Carter Florence suggests that translators have softened the meaning of leiros<\/em> in Luke 24:11 with translations like \u201can idle tale\u201d when it \u201cmeans \u2018nonsense,\u2019 \u2018drivel,\u2019 \u2018trash,\u2019 \u2018garbage,\u2019 \u2018crap,\u2019 \u2018bull,\u2019 or in its more vulgar form, \u2018~!@#$?%^&!*.\u2019\u201d[47]<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0 She adds that leiros<\/em> is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, amplifying its effect.[48]<\/a>\u00a0 When the purity of the Greek is not censored by the preacher, this text reveals a striking paradox:<\/p>\n

The gospel has always met with ridicule, right from the very first time it was preached.\u00a0 It has always sounded like a lot of leiros<\/em>.\u00a0 It has always been more than the church can handle, even when it is the very thing the church prays for; not even the disciples, as much as they loved Jesus, could take the good news.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n

Put to the purpose of clarifying scripture, a curse word takes on a new role.\u00a0 A curse word has the potential to disclose a divine message.<\/p>\n

This emphasis on linguistic purity leads to the second way a curse word can reveal the sacred.\u00a0 The preacher\u2019s usage underscores the idea that the power of the gospel message supersedes the power of the curse word.\u00a0 This kind of usage can crack brittle understandings of what constitutes sacred speech and reveal the sacred as a sphere that is not bound by social propriety. Anthony \u201cTony\u201d Campolo illustrates this phenomenon when he says:<\/p>\n

First, while you were sleeping last night 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don\u2019t give a shit.\u00a0 What\u2019s worse is that you are more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.[50]<\/a><\/p>\n

Campolo uses the affront of a curse word to reveal an even greater outrage:\u00a0 the church\u2019s disregard for poor people.\u00a0 In addition to effectively inviting listeners to care for people in need, Campolo\u2019s language challenges listeners to deepen their understandings of sacred speech.\u00a0 His approach may justifiably heighten expectations for the preaching event.<\/p>\n

Campolo\u2019s stance leads to a third issue.\u00a0 With careful usage, curse words root the preaching event in the tradition of biblical prophets. The jarring language of prophetic speech is an essential aspect of its poetry.\u00a0 John the Baptist calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a \u201cbrood of vipers\u201d because the label stings.[51]<\/a>\u00a0 Jesus\u2019 takes on a comparably sharp tone when he says of Herod, \u201cGo tell that fox. . .\u201d[52]<\/a> He directs the same edginess at lawyers and Pharisees with a battery of \u201cWoe unto you\u2019s.\u201d[53]<\/a> The damning effect of this diatribe is only outmatched by his inflammatory parables.\u00a0 Invectives are critical tools for Jesus as he exposes and resists the powers and principalities.\u00a0 \u00a0In the hands of a skilled preacher, a curse word reorients listeners to the church\u2019s legacy of vigorously decrying evil.<\/p>\n

Issues for Discernment <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In light of the foregoing, one might ask whether there are words that ought to be off limits.\u00a0 Are there, for example, words that are so loaded with contempt that they ought not to be spoken?\u00a0 Are there words that cannot be put to holy purposes without actually harming listeners?\u00a0 Several words would likely fall in this category for preachers.\u00a0 There is clearly a role for discernment when it comes to word choice.\u00a0 Tone, context, and occasion will have an impact on a word\u2019s tendency to distract rather than clarify.\u00a0 Yet, a paternalistic posture toward listeners is not the answer.\u00a0 Faithful discernment entails resisting the limited range of expression that is generally considered acceptable for preachers.\u00a0 Sometimes faithful discernment will lead a preacher to speak in a tone that is \u201cone octave too high\u201d for comfort. [54]<\/a><\/p>\n

The nature of the audience is critical in the preacher\u2019s discernment process.\u00a0 For example, the intended audience of Jeremiah Wright\u2019s 2003 sermon, \u201cConfusing God and Government\u201d was generally able to receive his message about the evils of war.\u00a0 His inclusion of the phrase, \u201cGod damn America\u201d did not overshadow the core message for these listeners.\u00a0 The general public\u2019s response, however, made it clear that this ability to contextualize cannot be assumed.[55]<\/a> Preachers may expect a clause that includes a curse word to be extracted and quoted repeatedly.\u00a0 Accordingly, careful discernment should include the full phrase at issue rather than the curse word alone.<\/p>\n

As another step in discernment, preachers might ask themselves why a given set of listeners need to be protected from stronger language.\u00a0 For instance, light swearing is generally more appropriate for listeners who are easily excitable or lack impulse control.\u00a0 Patients in a mental health facility or nursing home may fit within this category.\u00a0 Similarly, light swearing may better suit worship in a transitional housing community if formal language will engender self-respect.\u00a0 If no comparable parallel exists and listener comfort still takes priority, preachers might ask whether this entitlement to comfort is warranted. What end will the preacher\u2019s self-censoring serve?<\/p>\n

Curse words work best in sermons when they serve the sermon\u2019s core message.\u00a0 The same logic a preacher uses when considering whether to include a sermon illustration helps in this regard.\u00a0 Will the illustration (or curse word) propel the message, distract from it, or take on a life of its own?\u00a0 \u00a0How might inclusion contribute to a better understanding of the Good News?\u00a0 In a sermon on Mark 1:29-39, Roger Wikeley describes the Gospel of Mark as \u201cjust one damn thing after another.\u201d[56]<\/a>\u00a0 After crediting British historian Arnold Toynbee for this phrase, Wikeley goes on to narrate the frenetic pace of Mark and of contemporary Western life.\u00a0 \u201cOne damn thing after another\u201d becomes both a proxy for freneticism and a refrain magnifying the need for prayer.\u00a0 As the sermon progresses, listeners see \u201cone damn thing after another\u201d yield to the power of God\u2019s presence.\u00a0 In this sermon, then, cursing helps unveil the sublime. Similar effects are achievable when preachers attend to motive, context, and tone, and embrace the power of language rather than fear it.<\/p>\n

Sweating, spitting, and cursing are usually deemed profane.\u00a0 Yet in distinct ways each provides sermon listeners with a reminder that God is not subject to social norms. The preacher\u2019s sweaty brow speaks to the gravity of the moment of proclamation.\u00a0 The spitting preacher testifies to a truth that pushes social propriety aside.\u00a0 The cursing preacher uses volatile words for sacred purposes. Each medium shows that holiness manifests in shocking ways, upending antiseptic notions of the sacred.\u00a0 Even that which is taboo can glorify God.<\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0Notes<\/h4>\n

[1]<\/a> Walter Brueggemann, \u201cProphetic Leadership:\u00a0 Engagement in Counter-Imagination,\u201d Journal of Religious Leadership<\/em> 10, No. 1 (2011): 13.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, <\/em>ed., Suzanne Noffke (New York:\u00a0 Paulist Press, 1980), 54.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Ibid., 57.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Luke 22:44.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> R. Marie Griffith, \u201cMaterial Devotion:\u00a0 Pentecostal Prayer Cloths,\u201d Material History of American Religion Project Newsletter<\/em> (Spring 1997) http:\/\/www.materialreligion.org\/journal\/handkerchief.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Teresa L. Fry Brown, Weary Throats and New Songs:\u00a0 Black Women Proclaiming God\u2019s Word<\/em> (Nashville:\u00a0 Abingdon, 2003), 171-172.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Ibid., 166.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Phillip B. Zarrilli, et. al., Psychophysical Acting:\u00a0 An Intercultural Approach After Stanislavski<\/em> (London:\u00a0 Routledge, 2008), 143.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Ibid., 63.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, The Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Chrismation [Printable with Rubrics]<\/em> (Englewood, NJ:\u00a0 Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, 2008), 6.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> John Wesley, Directions Concerning Pronunciation and Gesture<\/em> (Bristol:\u00a0 William Pine, 1770), 5.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Richard Lischer, The Preacher King:\u00a0 Martin Luther King, Jr. and The Word that Moved America<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 Oxford University Press), 177.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Judith Butler, Excitable Speech:\u00a0 A Politics of the Performative<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 Routledge, 1997), 155.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> 1 Corinthians 1:27 NRSV.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Geoffrey Hughes, An Encyclopedia of Swearing:\u00a0 The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World<\/em> (Armonk, NY:\u00a0 M.E. Sharpe, 2006), 21.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Ibid., 114; Melissa Mohr, Holy Sh*t:\u00a0 A Brief History of Swearing<\/em> (Oxford and New York:\u00a0 Oxford University Press), 10;. Hughes, Encyclopedia<\/em>, 118.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Geoffrey Hughes, Swearing:\u00a0 a Social History of Foul Language, Oaths and Profanity in England<\/em> (Oxford and Cambridge, MA:\u00a0 Blackwell, 1991), 11. Hughes speaks of priests outside the Christian and Jewish traditions.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Mohr, 3.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Mohr, 6-7.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Ibid., 14.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Ibid., 18, 90-91.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> Ibid., 93.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Mohr, 12, 185-186.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Mohr, 86-87, 90.\u00a0 The inducement to sin seems to have grown out of an interpretation of Ephesians 5:3, which cautions against vulgar or silly talk or coarse joking. \u00a0Another key scripture on the issue was Matthew 12:36-37, which warns of the need to give account for every idle word that is spoken.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Mohr, 9, 90.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Ibid., 13.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Ibid., 14.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Geoffrey Hughes asks whether light swearing actually has a net effect of undermining the \u201clanguage of vehemence and urgency.\u201d\u00a0 Geoffrey Hughes, Swearing:\u00a0 a Social History,<\/em> 253.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Hughes, Encyclopedia<\/em>, 44.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> \u201cLoins\u201d is used in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5 instead of \u201cthigh.\u201d This pattern is repeated with Jacob and Joseph in Genesis 47:29.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Job 2:9 NRSV.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Mohr, 197.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Ibid., 197-198.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Hughes, Swearing:\u00a0 a Social History, <\/em>4.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> J. Louis Martyn, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul<\/em> (Nashville:\u00a0 Abingdon, 1997), 284.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Ibid., 293, 297.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Ibid., 291.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> Thomas LeClair, \u201cThe Language Must Not Sweat\u201d in Conversations with Toni Morrison<\/em>, ed. Danille K. Taylor-Guthrie (Jackson:\u00a0 University Press of Mississippi, 1994), 123.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Philippians 3:8 NRSV.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Anna Carter Florence, Preaching as Testimony <\/em>(Louisville:\u00a0 Westminster John Knox, 2007), 118.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> Larry L. McSwain and William Loyd Allen, eds., Twentieth-century Shapers of Baptist Social Ethics<\/em> (Macon, GA:\u00a0 Mercer University Press, 2008), 275-276.<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7 NRSV.<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> Luke 13:32 NRSV.<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> Luke 11:42-52.<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> Lischer, 177, citing Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets <\/em>\u00a0(New York:\u00a0 Harper & Row, 1962), 10.<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> Kelefa Sanneh, \u201cProject Trinity:\u00a0 The Perilous Mission of Obama\u2019s Church,\u201d New Yorker<\/em>, April 7, 2008. https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2008\/04\/07\/project-trinity<\/a><\/p>\n

[56]<\/a> The sermon was preached at All Souls Memorial Episcopal Church, Washington, DC on Feb. 8, 2015.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Download PDF:\u00a0McCray, Sweating Spitting Cursing Abstract Holiness does not always manifest itself in pristine ways. Sometimes profane vehicles open us to the holy. This essay explores three such occasions that surface in preaching. First, I consider the sweating preacher. Drawing<\/p>\n

Continue Reading<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":218,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,20,21],"tags":[66,92,80,93,91],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/dragon1-e1438188303570.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":840,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210\/revisions\/840"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pmcleanup.ecdsdev.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}