Coarse Joking

...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. Eph 5:4 (NASB)

I read and heard it repeated numerous times that, upon his deathbed, W.C. Fields was caught reading the Bible. (Fields was known for his disdain for pretty much any type of religion.) When asked if he had reconsidered his opinion of religion he reportedly replied: "Just looking for loopholes." (Hold that thought for just a sec.)

The topic of profanity or "coarse" language has been the topic on at least two blogs I've read in the past week. Apparently, there are plenty of Christians (and pastors) these days that see nothing wrong with what many classify as profanity. Mark Driscoll, Senior Pastor at Mars Hill in Seattle has been called "the Cussing Pastor," a title according to Tim Challies, Driscoll "seems to feel is both funny and well-deserved." Althought I've never heard him use profanity, descriptions of Driscoll sound similiar in content to others I've run across on the internet.

So what does that have to do with W.C. Fields?! I think the drive behind the "cussing pastors" and those who agree with them is this idea that the Bible is full of loopholes.I've heard more times than once: "The Apostle Paul used the "S" word (cf. Php 3:8)! Or comments such as this one:

Don’t you find it the least bit absurd to think that documents written ~2k years ago by mostly Jewish men in ancient Greek would contain in them a list of English words that are forbidden?

It's this whole idea that because the Bible doesn't SPECIFICALLY forbid SPECIFIC words, then the door's open. Or if we can do enough linguistic gymnastics, we can claim that Paul was as much a potty-mouth as the next guy. Besides, "they're just words, right?"

Even though Paul didn't give us a list of words (similar to George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television--which I won't repeat here), he is obviously making a point about SOMETHING when he refers to "coarse joking." James makes a similar appeal as to the language we use (James 1:26) Both writers, it seems, have something--either specific words or phrases in mind, don't you think?

One individual I was discussing this topic with stated:

...the key difference in “coarse joking” would point to the purpose of the conversation, and not the individual words chosen (going back to using particular topics specifically for the purpose of titillation or “for the hell of it”, which would fall under this description).

I doesn’t seem at all like Paul is suggesting that there are a specific list of “coarse” words, but that it is the topic of conversation which is being addressed and the manner in which the topic is being addressed.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like the biggest bunch of gobbledy-gook aka bovine excrement I heard in a while.

Why must there be a "loophole?" Why is is necessary that we supposedly have the liberty to use words that others may find offensive, simply because "Paul didn't give us a list?"