Blogotional
The Bible does tell us something that is of first importance: 1 Cor. 15:3
We know from scripture that life is more important than food and the body is more important than clothes; Pharisees were told that they should not neglect justice, mercy and faithfulness (the more important matters of the law) while still practicing the lesser matters; we are told the two most important commandments; etc.
So we do know that there are some things that are more important than others. But I don't see where it is OK to neglect either the more important things or the less important things. And the Bible doesn't specifically say language is a least important thing. That is just how people think of it.
In Ephesians 5 we are told to imitate God and what that involves. Sexual immorality, impurity, and greed are listed along with obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking. There it doesn't actually say it is OK to neglect the ones we consider lesser sins if we are not neglecting the ones we consider more important.
I hear lots of accusations that people can't be concerned with both the lesser and more important things at the very same time. I don't think that is an accurate picture.
Perhaps in this case, since scriptures use the very words about language, it is easier to discuss than ones about Catholicism, because scriptures don't use the very words "Roman Catholic church". That disucssion would involve much deeper explanations. What do you think?
To clarify: the Bible does indicate language is of lesser importance than some of the things I've listed above, but it does not indicate it is of lesser importance than other things not listed scripturally as of "greater importance". In other words, of the things considered to be of lesser importance, language isn't shown to be of least importance among those, as far as I can tell 
I know the Catholicism discussion would have been mouch more difficult - that's my point. Sholdn;t we be about the hard work?
I don't suggest the use of language should be ignored, it is a matter of degree.
Driscoll uses "coarse language" sometimes, but it's definately not foolish and it's not joking. There's no prohibition for corase language. The Bible often uses flowery and extreme ephemisims to make dramatic points. People who don't like Driscoll's language need to grow up. It's not a sin. It's not inappropriate.
I suppose it is this medium of communication that makes responders answer the "easier" issues rather than the harder, more complex issues. You, as the blogger and blog owner, have the freedom to write about things in more detail. A person merely commenting wouldn't feel right, I suppose, to fill up page after page in a comments section toaddress a difficult question (and probably wouldn't usually be welcomed to do so). Difficult issues often require much more explanation.
Does that sound reasonable? It doesn't mean that people aren't concerned about the difficult questions, or that they don't study them deeply in other ways ...
Gee Kathleen - I just figred this out - I'm not rally calling on commenters to steer this discussion - I'm calling on other bloggers. You are absolutely right when it comes t commenters.
John,
Brilliant post. Really. I've linked it at Mere O.
Jon,
People who don't like Driscoll's language need to grow up. It's not a sin. It's not inappropriate.
Okay, then, would it be sinful or inappropriate if I replied?: "What a moronic statement! The people who need to grow up are the ones who continue to wallow in their seventh-grade based mode of language."
John,
Didn't this unimportant topic get tossed about after the GodBlogCon last year?
...we are worrying about the use of slang terms for excrement...
Slang? It's not slang, it's vulgar. And it's vulgar for a reason. While I could commit sinful hatred and anger towards my daughter by yelling, "For crying out loud, you stupid little brat!", would that outburst carry the same impact as, "God-d***it you f***ing little b**ch!"? (which I overheard my neighor say to her daughter) While both outbursts are sinful, which one carries with it the muck of vulgarity?
Words matter because words carry meaning and intent. While it's all too apparent that our society has fallen into the mire of casual vulgarity, it seems that the church has, like sheep, followed suit. What is disturbing is to see certain apologists for vulgarity attempt to buttress their actions with terms such as "honesty," or "appropriate."
Kathleen,
I agree with you. This issue, while not being one of the biggies, is certainly worth discussing.
It is odd that a time when our culture is falling apart and the hearts and minds of the Western church is in peril, we argue about what some pastor (who seems to do good work on the whole) may have said. C.S. Lewis saw this 50 years ago and therefore he presented "Mere Christianity", a book profoundly impacting my life and the lives of a plethora of Christians since. Perspective is so difficult for us - as it was for the Fundamentalists of the early 20th century who faced many of the same battles we do now. May the eyes of our minds be enlightened to fight the right battles at the right times and blessings to John Schroeder for pointing it out.
Commenting by HaloScan
