You need to be warned that this post contains a bad word. But it does so only because the Bible itself contains a bad word. I never knew that. You don't know it either, because you've been protected from knowing it.

It appears in Philippians 3:8 (which I've recently been working on for my 3rd semester Greek class at seminary). Here it is in the original Greek:

ἀλλὰ μενοῦνγε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μου, διὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα, ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω...

The word you want to keep your eye on is "σκύβαλα"--pronounced "skubala." Here's a literal translation of the verse.

But indeed I also consider everything to be loss on account of the surpassing knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I forfeited all things; and I consider them shit so that I may gain Christ...

Yes, you heard me right. Skubala means shit. Not only does it literally mean shit--i.e., human excrement--but it also has the same connotation. It is a vulgar word. Paul would not have said it in mixed company unless he expected a reaction.

It's difficult to find Christian sources that discuss skubala, but its use in ancient writings outside of the Bible makes clear that it was considered very impolite. The leading modern Greek lexicon--BDAG, it's called--glosses skubala as "refuse," "garbage," "human excrement," "crud," and "crap"--very strong words for this Christian scholarly book.

So the original text of the sacred Scripture contains a dirty word. I don't know about you, but I felt a profound sense of relief when I discovered this.

English translations don't like this word. They take the edge off it.

King James: ...Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ...

New American Standard: ...Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ...

New English Translation: ...Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things– indeed, I regard them as dung!– that I may gain Christ... [I suppose the exclamation point is there to make it a bit "edgier."]

Revised Standard: ...Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ...

It's interesting that all these translations "soften up" the original vulgarity. What does that say about the people who make and buy Bibles? What does it mean when the Bible is more profane than we are?

Why Do We Sanitize the Bible?

I'm betting there are two sorts of people reading this post. One sort of person will be asking, "Why have the translators been sanitizing the Bible? If Paul said it, surely it's not our business to change it." The other sort of person will ask, "Why, Jeff, are you writing about this? Why air this dirty laundry? How is this discussion helpful to Christianity?"

Interestingly, the answer to both these questions lies in Philippians 3 itself. Paul uses this naughty word for a reason. Look at what Paul is saying here (Phil 3:4b-9, NET translation).

If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless. But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things– indeed, I regard them as dung!– that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness–a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness.

So what's the connection between the fact that Paul uses a dirty word and the fact we purge it from our translations? The connection is legalism.

How Good is Good Enough?

Legalism is the pretense that some human beings are nice and others are naughty: that there is a standard of "normal" behavior that defines what sort of person is "decent" and what sort is a scumbag. The Philippians were starting to buy into this idea, and Paul wrote to them to wake them up. He says, in effect, "Don't bother trying to be 'decent': I've already tried it. I was as 'normal' and 'decent' as you can get and I was still a scumbag. If you want to be righteous, it's going to take a whole lot more than politeness and normalcy. It's going to take a divine intervention." And to make sure they get the point, as well as to illustrate his contempt for human standards of normalcy, Paul drops the s-bomb.

In his discussion of legalism, Paul is saying what Jesus himself said again and again. Here are some of the ways Jesus said it.

Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:27-28)

(You can already sense the Ted Haggard reference coming, can't you?)

You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5:27-28)

On that day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!' (Matthew 7:22-23)

Interestingly, in the Old Testament, Isaiah uses another "vulgar" image when talking about this same topic:

We are all like one who is unclean, all our so-called righteous acts are like a menstrual rag in your sight. (Isaiah 64:6)

In other words, what human beings perceive as upstanding behavior, God perceives as a soiled tampon. Thanks for that image, Isaiah.

Insiders and Outsiders

We only let G-rated people into our churches. In church, a person who smokes, or cusses, or reeks of liquor, or dresses seductively is viewed as suspect, inferior, abnormal, an outsider. You're only allowed into the church body/family/club/clique if your shirts are starched and your smile is white and your speech is inoffensive.

It wasn't always this way. Jesus himself hung out with "sinners"--including tax collectors, drunks, and prostitutes--to such a great degree that the decent "church people" of his day accused him of being a debauched party animal (Luke 7:34). The early church was a motley crew, not the clean middle-class stereotype of modern evangelical churches.

What changed? One of the things that changed is the reason why we go to church. Now we go to "connect with people like ourselves," to "form community," to "fellowship" and receive "support." We go so that our children will be in a loving, safe setting where they can learn about God and family values. Well, these are noble goals, but what do they have to do with Jesus hanging on a bloody cross? Did Jesus hang on a bloody cross to provide us with a clean, safe, child-friendly mall-like clubhouse where we can hold banal conversations with like-minded family-values-oriented people? Or did he hang on a bloody cross to utterly transform our shitty lives? And if it is the latter, who do you think "gets" Jesus more: the clean, polite middle-class people or the dirty, vulgar funky-class people? He said: "Those who are healthy don't need a physician, but those who are sick do. Go and learn what this saying means: 'I want mercy and not sacrifice.' For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matthew 9:12)

So the Bible says "shit" and "soiled tampon" because that's what the Bible thinks of how good we are. But your translation says "dung" and "filthy rags" because Christians are still trying to whitewash the truth.

Invested in Sin

Well, how's this strategy working out for us? We evangelicals are faring pretty well, right? I mean, maybe we don't uphold God's crazy-high standard of moral behavior, but we sure do a lot better than the normal human standard, right?

Oh sure. That's why our divorce rate is no better than the national average. That's why 50% of all Christian men admit to being addicted to pornography--admit to being addicted. Twenty percent of Christian women do too.

And that's why Ted Haggard's recent confession does not surprise me in the least. (There's the mention--you knew it was coming.) Evangelicalism has become a religion of appearances. We've created a subculture of politeness and "good morals" instead of humble worship and radical obedience to God. We churn money and votes through our glistening megachurches, but have lost touch with our own deep brokenness. Our talk is all about "conversion" (i.e. selling club memberships) rather than the discipleship (transformation and obedience) that Jesus offers and commands. Why should I be surprised when the king of the religion of appearances turns out to be not as he appears?

There's an interesting article on the National Association of Evangelicals' response to the Ted Haggard scandal. In it, Rev. Leith Anderson, a megachurch pastor who is temporarily replacing Haggard as NAE director, says, "[Most people] will understand that if there are 45,000 churches [affiliated with NAE], that 44,999 of them have leaders that did not misbehave and that one person misbehaved and that that is an anomaly."

So "misbehavior" is an anomaly? See, that's funny, 'cause I thought the Bible said everyone misbehaves; something like: "There is no one who does good, not even one." Is "misbehavior" different from "sin," in Rev. Anderson's view? Is he suggesting that misbehavior is gross, whereas sin is mild and excusable? Or is he saying that "misbehavior" is when sin becomes embarrassingly public, whereas mere "sin" is kept pleasantly private?

It's too bad that a religion that names itself after Christ, that purports to offer his Good News to the world, still wants to deny the very reason he went to the cross. People are broken. Not some people: all people. So which is worse: to be broken in a way everyone can see, or to be broken in a way that you can keep secret--even from yourself? Think about it. To understand the answer to that question is to begin to understand the Sermon the Mount. "Blessed are the poor in spirit." "Blessed are those who weep and mourn." "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." "I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The Bible doesn't offer "decency" as an option. Either you're mired in sin, or you are justified. The Bible neither denies sin nor revels in it. It tells the truth about our grotesque brokenness, and then offers a supernatural solution. Isn't that the gospel we are so eager to spread? Then why are we still running from it?

Jesus ' story of the two worshipers sums it all up (Luke 18:10-14).

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists, unrighteous people, adulterers–or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of everything I get.' The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!' I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee.