My desire for alliteration and titular brevity and cuteness may have derailed my post yesterday, and it bothers me. I wrote to make an important point and the discussion has missed the mark. Discussions tend to do that.
I made the point that we need to follow Paul’s example and treat our human righteousness, our human culture, our human heritage – all that Paul refers to in Philippians 3 – as “dung.” I referenced Dr. Wallace’s excellent piece that placed the word skubala on the shock scale somewhere between the word crap and the more shocking s-word.
Of course, the discussion raged not on the topic of my post, but on the ethics of “cussing.” We’ve seen some preachers in recent days who used profanity from the pulpit and claimed it was okay. And, as I said in the comments, I actually misused the word “profanity” in my title because I was alliterating. “Paul’s Profanity.” Paul’s Shocking Vocabulary Choice just didn’t have the same punch. I try not to write for sensationalism, but sometimes when I’m titling, I go astray.
Anyway, I thought a brief follow-up post might be helpful.
Some referenced two other verses which seem to conflict with the idea that Paul might be using a “vulgarity” of some sort here. I’m not going to do deep exegesis or word studies here, but I have done some study in the past. I would give three words here.
- You can always find someone who says what you want to hear if you read enough. Exegesis and word study is not about finding someone who says what you want to hear and then saying, “Aha!” but seeking to get the best consensus of the best scholars and seeking to figure out the real meaning of the text – even if that is difficult for us to hear or causes us to reevaluate our assumptions.
- In all of these verses, context is key – as always.
Examples of “Vivid” Language
There are several places where Paul uses “vivid” language – where translations actually have to smooth over the meaning because if we gave a literal translation it would shock our people. This is in the best tradition of the Old Testament, where many scriptures are so brutally vivid (vulgar?) that a literal translation would get me in trouble just reading it in my pulpit!
- There are some passages in Proverbs 5 and in other places that speak of married sex in a way that might make many blush. I’m not sure what it says that we are more prudish than the scriptures themselves, but most of us would not read these scriptures out loud in church or we would teach them as allegories!
- Isaiah 64:6 is pretty harsh. “All our righteousness is as filthy rags.” The Hebrew lexicons I’ve looked at are pretty unanimous. Isaiah (speaking under prophetic inspiration) is describing a rag stained by a woman’s period. This was considered unclean and unholy – a powerful visual symbol of the Israelites’ attempts at righteousness.
- In prophetic passages, God describes Israel’s idolatrous “whoring” in ways that this pastor is not comfortable reading to the congregation!
Let’s take a brief look at two passages where Paul spoke harshly.
1. In Philippians 3:7-8, Paul called his Jewish heritage “dung” – according to Daniel Wallace, the shocking word skubala. We can argue the precise meaning of the word, but it seems it was not a word that generally used in polite conversation and might make many uncomfortable.
Perhaps “crap” might be the best analogy. If I said, “I consider it crap” it would not be an out and out vulgarity but it would certainly make my congregation sit up and take notice that I’d said something unusual.
2. Of course, Paul’s harshest words (judged by this man anyway) may have been in Galatians 5:12, when he speaks about the circumcision party which was fixated on the act of cutting off the foreskin. Paul says, “I wish they would emasculate themselves.” Wow! Uncross your legs, gentlemen. “If they are so concerned about peritome (circumcision – ‘cutting around’) I wish they’d just go all the way and cut it off!” That’s tough. I’ve been involved in some blogging brouhahas but I’ve never told someone to emasculate himself.
So, there are times when harsh, vivid, physically brutal language is used in the Bible. Bodily functions are described at times in ways that our modern sensibilities find offensive.
What about THAT Passage?
There are three passages that people tend to point to in giving the other side. Yesterday, people said my interpretation of Philippians 3 couldn’t possibly be right because Paul would be violating his own words in two other passages. I contend that is only because they are misinterpreting Paul’s words in the other passages.
1. Ephesians 5:4 “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”
Here, Paul seems to be condemning exactly what Paul would have been doing in Philippians 3 (and Galatians as well). But, context is king. In verse 3, Paul warns against sexual immorality and impurity (and covetousness). In verse 5, he says that those who are guilty of those sins have no inheritance in the kingdom, and goes on in verse 6 to define them as recipients of God’s wrath. Here we have a context sandwich! The filthiness, foolishness, and crudity of verse 4 is likely to focus on sexually explicit and immoral joking.
- The word “filthiness” means shameful and often has a sexual connotation. Here it seems to have such – it speaks of moral filth.
- Foolish means empty of value, without positive moral effect. Paul’s words, while vivid, even crude, were not foolish.
- Crude joking seems to be referring to “risque wit” or ribaldry.
What is passage targets is crude sexual joking. It does not conflict with Paul using vivid language, such as he did in either the Philippians or Galatians passage.
2. Colossians 3:8 “But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.”
This is, again, a passage where context carries the meaning. The last in a series of five words, “obscene talk” seems to carry the same meaning as the admonition in Ephesians 5:4. “No sexually explicit or improper talk.” But in context here, there seems to be a different meaning – one that almost all the standard commentaries agree on. The other four words all refer to the outworkings of anger and malice, and there seems to be an escalation. This word seems to be the final word in that series, and is generally believed to be best interpreted as “abusive speech” – words that demean, deride, or devalue a person.
In other words – bloggers. (Sorry.)
In context, this is not a command against anything Paul said in Philippians or Galatians, but against harsh, unloving words that tear down instead of building up the body of Christ.
3. Of course, there’s Exodus 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
This is what profanity really is. Using the “s-word” is not profanity (or some of the other four-letter words we wash our kids mouths out for saying). Profanity is taking that which is holy and making it unholy – profaning the holy. There’s nothing holy about human excrement. The name of God is holy and using it in an empty way is profanity. Saying, “God damn” is profanity because only God has the right to judge and condemn. Saying, “Go to hell” is profanity for the same reason. Judgment and condemnation belong to God not me. So, profanity is the usage of the holy in a common way, it is the devaluing of the sacred.
Technically, we should never confuse VULGARITY and PROFANITY. They are separate things and separate issues.
Conclusion: About the Christian Tongue
1. Profanity is Verboten!
Absolutely, 100%, no question, no wiggle room. Using God’s name in an empty, vain way is sin. Actually, it’s another post, but saying, “God told me” when it’s my own idea – that’s using God’s name in vain. Should a Christian use profanity-saccharin? You know? Gosh, golly. Darn it! I don’t know. I’d have been spanked as a kid if I did, but as I’ve grown older I have gotten a bad case of potty mouth and a darn it or two escapes my tongue now and again. Heck, I’ve even said Shucks from time to time. It would probably be best for all of us to leave these words be, because using God’s name in an vain manner is sin.
What is fascinating, is that we get more upset at the use of VULGARITY than we do at minor profanity. If there’s a movie with “O my God” throughout, we think little of it, but if s-bombs and f-bombs are dropped, we turn it off. What does that say?
2. Sexually explicit humor is out of place.
Clearly, Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:4, and the literal meaning in Colossians 3:8 (though I’ve argued for a different interpretation), make it clear that sex is holy between a husband and a wife. It is not wrong to talk about sex in a responsible way, but course joking, empty sexual humor – that is wrong.
One side note here – sexual humor is one of the things that breaks down the walls between men and women and eventually can lead to inappropriate relationships and affairs. If we will avoid crude talk it will help us avoid adultery.
But, crude sexual joking has no place for the Christian.
3. Vivid, descriptive language is not always sin.
Paul made wise use of vivid, even (arguably) vulgar language in the two passages I referenced earlier. The prophets did the same. It was done for spiritual reasons – to convey truth. It is worth noting that it was not done just to draw attention or to “be cool.” It was done to make an important point.
And the reason it worked, it seems, is because it was so out of place. If Paul used a vulgarity all the time, it meant nothing. But if he suddenly used vivid language when he needed to make a point and it was unusual, it was all the more effective.
Dave’s Guidelines for Preachers (take ’em for what they’re worth)
1. Err on the side of caution. There’s usually a tactful way to make a point. If I’m preaching Philippians 3:8, I probably say something like, “Paul is speaking of that stuff farmers spread on their fields to make the crops grow…you know that stuff that makes Siouxland stink.” I can get the idea across without vulgarity. I think we need to KNOW what Paul said, but we usually do better to err on the side of NOT being vulgar in the pulpit.
2. Never use profanity. God’s name is holy.
3. Never use sexually-explicit, or even sexually-suggestive humor, from the pulpit or in casual conversation. Your conversation with women, and with others in your church should be pure, holy, chaste, and a host of other synonyms.
I remember one time my preacher dad said something at a church gathering that was (accidently) horribly sexually inappropriate. The place burst out in embarrassed laughter and he stood there trying to suck the words back into his mouth! But there was not a single person there who thought for a second that dad said it on purpose. Why? Because he’d never made a sexually suggestive joke. He joked all the time, but never dirty jokes. Never sexually-based jokes. When it happened, every person there knew it was an accident!
That’s how your conversation should be.
(Oh, by the way, it was absolutely hilarious. I wish it had been videotaped.)
4. If you use “vivid” or other “descriptive” references – like Paul’s in Philippians or Galatians, make sure they are HOLY.
- They must be for godly reasons – to make an important point that cannot adequately be made in other ways.
- It must not be to gain attention for yourself or make yourself look cool.
- It must be necessary. If there’s another way to make the point, make the point.
- Go only as far as you have to go – exercise self-control.
- Make it the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
I’d add something to your list for preachers… Learned this one from Robert Stein during hermeneutics class at SBTS:
5. Know your translation.
Granted it has since been revised and I’ve yet to meet anyone who preaches out of the original Living Bible, but in the original LB in 1 Samuel 20:30 where the ESV has Saul exclaim at Jonathan, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman” the LB has, “You SOB” (except, spelled out, you know).
Stein used that to illustrate: don’t just pick a translation off your shelf and go with it. Know before hand what you’re reading before the church so you don’t find yourself stumbling over a modern day curse, even though it is an accurate modern translation.
I’ve always considered “extreme” in much the same category as anger. There are a few instances when anger is the correct response; however, those instances are few by comparison and are no means the rule. I have heard Christians “justify” their anger problem by citing the example of Jesus in the temple (Matt 21:12-13 and parallels), and thus implying that Jesus was in some ways an angry young man. A look at Jesus’ life indicates something quite different — there were certain extreme instances when he used anger, but by comparison those were quite few and far between. There may be a few instances in someone’s life when anger is duly justified, but for the most part James’s counsel is appropriate, “The anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God” (Jas 1:19).
I consider extreme language in much the same way. Paul is a good example. He reserves the extreme language for extreme cases to shake up his hearers and cause them to listen to his point. But these examples are few and far between by comparison.
In today’s potty-mouthed culture, preachers of God’s word need to be very careful with our tongues and the ways we express things. I am not so offended by the vulgarity I hear as much as the prevalence of the vulgarity that I hear. Extreme languages in inserted into almost every sentence or every conversation, to the extent that it doesn’t mean anything anymore. It is just debased speech and is a common everyday occurrence. The technical term for such is “vulgar” or “profane.” Paul and the prophets may have at times used extreme speech to make their point, but the infrequency that they used it meant that it was not “common,” “vulgar,” or “profane.”
Agreed, but I do note that that very vulgarity betrays them. Non-christians often characterize us as being negative about sex, and themselves as positive. Yet it seems that typical use of vulgarity makes the latter in doubt. To use milder slang, the person who says ‘screw you’ is not typically offering a ‘beautiful experience’ to the person they’re talking to. They’re expressing anger and/or cruelty. The person who says ‘I was screwed’ is not recounting a wonderful experience, he saying that he was defrauded. And as far as I can tell (at least in English), every vulgar term for sex gets used in the same way. If they so easily think of sex in terms of cruelty and fraud, how are they actually positive about sex?
After reading this series of rebuttals to something that is not only common, but realistic in nature. I curse my heritage in light of Jesus the Christ. It is no wonder to me that we as good Christian Southern Baptists do not dare to mingle with those filthy, crude, foolish, blasphemed, homosexual, nasty (dare I use the word) Sinners.
Shame on us!! I think I read somewhere that Jesus was a friend to sinners. Oh, yeah, that was a curse on him…
How should we go about telling them about Salvation, if we do not speak to these evil, vile people?
Dave Miller,
I’m not sure it’s possible for me to agree with you anymore with regard to what you’ve written in this article.
This article and the previous one (title not withstanding) are really good pieces of work Dave. I think you have broken down the different options quite well.
Thanks for the effort
Dave, While I agree with you that the Prophets and Paul used some graphic illustrations, at times, for the purpose of driving home their point to the people, I still do not think that we have to use curse words to say what Paul and the Prophets were saying. For example: When Paul used the word for manure, or dung, why would we have to say “Sh-t?” Why? What’s the point? Saying that those things were counted as dung, or manure, would be shocking enough. Do you see my point? Also, in Galatians, when he talked about circumcising men, due to the people, who were emphasizing law over grace, why would say that Paul said, “I wish they would cut off their d__ks and b_lls.” when we could just say that Paul was implying that they should cut off their manhood? Or, that they should just go ahead and cut off their private parts? Why should we choose the most vulgar language, when we have other options, which are just as vivid and shocking as the cuss words? Also, I do not agree with your interpretation of the passages in Ephesians and Colossians. I do think they mean coarse, vulgar, nasty talking….cuss words, nasty jokes, base comments, etc. Anway, I love Jesus a whole lot more than I love my heritage. I belong to the Kingdom of God, and not to the kingdoms of this world. But, I still love my Southern heritage. I love that we have our own accent, sweet tea, and fried catfish. I love that we teach our children to have manners, and we know how to cook BBQ the right way. I still like that my Great Great Grandfather rode with Gen. Forrest, and fought bravely against the Northern Aggression. After the war, he married a full blooded, Creek Indian woman…my Great Great Grandmother. I do not hate Black people, or look down on them, just because of the color of their skin. I love Black people, Hispanic people, Asian people, and Dave Miller and Ryan Abernathy and some others, who disagree with me, from time to time. In other words, I don’t think we have to hate our Southern heritage, in order to love Jesus more. I don’t think we have to hate our Southern way of living, in order to really follow Jesus. Now, anything that I might have looked on, before, as… Read more »
Vol,
I do not think anyone is suggesting – I know I’m not – that pastors should use what is defined today in our respective subcultures as cursewords to get their point across –
I’m just simply acknowledging that what is defined as a cuss word in one culture may not be in another – and even within culture what might be a cuss word today may not be defined as a cuss word tomorrow in the same culture.
To say that the profits – even the apostles – used shocking language to get across their point would be a bit of an understatement.
But if one believes based upon valid word study that the most accurate translation of the word is “the S word” – then that pastor has a responsibility to convey that in his message – even if he does not actually use the word – which I would recommend in most Context that he not.
Like I posted above I have found that explaining the meaning of the word as a strong word for human excrement.
I’m just wondering how you and David Brumbelow and others have become so convinced that words that you consider profane words – based on your own cultural understanding – are universal (for all people, at all times, in all cultures) profane words – and if so – how you reached that conviction.
Dave,
I’m not arguing about what are considered cuss words in our day, and not in 1908. I’m not talking about Paul using a word in that day, that we consider a cussword in our day. I mean, the word “sh_t” wasn’t even around in Paul’s day. That word is something that developed later….closer to our day and time.
What I’m saying is that Paul would not use curse words, or nasty talk, back in his day. Paul would not do something that he said was ungodly, in other places. So, when Dave said that Paul was saying, “Sh_t;” I disagree. I absolutely do NOT think that Paul was like Mark Driscoll used to be. And, further, I don’t think that the Scriptures warrant that we’ve got to use such words to describe what Paul said. Human feces, manure, dung, human waste all suffice, and are good explanations of the word that Paul used. We don’t have to start using foul language, or base words, and what we consider cussing, in order to explain what Paul was saying. I don’t think we should say things that would make it look like an Apostle would curse and use ugly language, in order to make a point. The word and what it means is shocking enough.
Do you see my point?
David
Thanks Vol. And I love you too man.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote here- particularly about the more harmless expressions of Southern culture- great food and drinks and literature and art.
I think you and I would agree though that anything that would seek to dethrone or marginalize Jesus- even our beloved BBQ or tea- would be worth less than excrement to us compared to pleasing Him and making Him known.
That to me- no matter whether you read it dung or poop or the word my mom hates- is the essence of the passage. And I think the word we would use to preach this in our pulpits would need to communicate the strength of that distaste.
I don’t have to drop an S-bomb to my congregation to make my point. I am sure you don’t either. There are more elegant ways to get the point across, but the point needs to come across in the same way that Paul meant it, with the same strength and potency.
On that I am sure we agree as well.
David: From the Encyclopedia Britannica on the word in question aka the s word.
The word is likely derived from Old English, having the nouns scite (dung, attested only in place names) and scitte (diarrhoea), and the verb sc?tan (to defecate, attested only in besc?tan, to cover with excrement); eventually it morphed into Middle English sch?tte (excrement), schyt (diarrhoea) and shiten (to defecate), and it is virtually certain that it was used in some form by preliterate Germanic tribes at the time of the Roman Empire.
Debbie,
Thanks for the history lesson on sh-t, but again, I’m not so much interested in the origins of the word. I’m talking about Paul using a word that we would interpret as a cuss word, in our day. You see what I’m saying?
Yes Vol, I see what you are saying….but I think you are still missing my question.
My question is how has it been determined that the S word falls under profanity as the bible describes it?
You seem to be arguing that the word is always sinful and that its use is always forbidden – I am wondering how you have determined that?
When preaching Philippians 3 – I agree that in my context and probably in yours – the use of the “S word” would perk up ears but because of largely regional cultural sensibilities it would also be unnecessarily overly offensive and therefore likely would DETRACT from any point that is being made – but in some regions and cultures of the US the use of the “S” word would perk up the listeners and help them understand the point but not necessarily offend the listeners.
I tend to think that “cuss” words, are just that words – and have no sinful value in and of themselves – instead cuss words are largely determined by societal and cultural dictates and certainly this should be strongly considered when speaking. The message of the gospel is offensive enough – but we need not unnecessarily offend.
Vol, I think everyone agrees that Mark Driscoll (who is certainly low hanging fruit and black eye for you to to use against Cals whenever possible) took the whole contextualization thing to a lower (and sinful) level – not irrelevantly though – his (now revealed) motives to make himself look “cool” and puff himself up is what spewed forth the language -pun, LOL – BTW isn’t that exactly what Mr. Miller cautioned against in his post – – – self exaltation?? So will you please stop invoking Driscoll’s name into discussions? In fact, tell ya what – If you will stop that that I promise to not mention the foul mouthed lying ERGUN CANER who boasted quite an extensive array of sins himself in effort to puff himself up. As you are I am sure aware – He also presents himself now as low hanging fruit and a black eye on your soteriological stripe – should we choose to take advantage of it. So lets call a truce on the low hanging fruit – OK?
“I tend to think that “cuss” words, are just that words – and have no sinful value in and of themselves…”
I should have added to this sentence that its the motivations of the heart and the intention behind the words that make them so.
In others words – “Shoot” or “dog gone it” can be just much sinful as the S word and “heck” or “what in the world” can be just as sinful as “H – e – double hockey sticks” – why?? – its motivations and intention not the words themselves that make speech profane, sexually explicit or abusive and therefore sinful.
Language needs emphasizers. If it didn’t we wouldn’t keep trying to find alternatives like “Darn!” or “Shoot!” Emphasizers are a part of language helped to push home the context of whatever the sentence carries.
For kicks and giggles. Here’s a sermon title for y’all….
Numbers 22:21-38 “Dude, why are you beating your own ass?”
Wow
why the wow, Vol?
I am using the word that the KJV uses – are you suggesting that the connotation changed over time and culture or something?
hmmmm…..
Ass is viewed today in many contexts within the US as a curse word – vulgar if you will – that’s why many pastors say “donkey” instead when dealing with this narrative or other instances where the word ass is used to reference that particular beast of burden….my point is that the word is the exact same. The only thing that has “changed” is our context and culture – sensibilities – It is certainly clear that not every use of the word “ass” is sinful – although some uses of it certainly is.
Here is another example of how words “change meanings” over time – demonstrating the sin is not in the word itself – but in its context and usage. The word “piss” is often considered vulgar and cussing…some are even offended if someone says “that pissed me off” or “the Cardinals are pissing away the game.”
But….
Several times in the KJV scripture the word “piss” or its derivative “pisseth” is used to convey a reference to men – or those who urinate standing up.
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=9&quicksearch=pisseth+against+the+wall
“Piss”, “Pissed” etc… are just words….context, intent and motivation can make them sinful…just like all words can be made sinful – not by power of the words themselves – but by motivation, context and intent.
OK, I am done now. 😉
It was a WOW, like shocked and LOL, kind of WOW.
Also, Tarheel, I’m not saying that Paul, or the KJV, used words, back then, that we might find offensive, today. I’m saying that we shouldn’t translate the word into a cussword of TODAY. Why would we? And, it even violates Scripture about talking in an ugly, nasty way.
In other words, as we translate the Greek word that Paul used, back then, there’s no reason to make it the cuss word of today, as if Paul was cussing, back then. In other words, the word means human feces, manure, dung, human waste….why choose the cuss word of TODAY to translate it. I very seriously doubt that the Apostle Paul would want that word to be translated into a vulgar, nasty, cussword of today.
See what I’m trying to say, now?
David
Yes. I do think we should take into account our current culture – our current context – totally agreed. That’s called knowing your audience.
I wonder – if Philippians have been written in English – I know it didn’t exist at the time – might Paul have used the S word? I happen to think he might have. Because given the context that he was using it and the intentions involved – in I’m not sure I agree that the “S word” is universally a curse word.
It’s clear that Paul used the most shocking and strongest word available to him in the language of the day to describe how he felt about the matter – and simply put – the “S word” is the strongest, most shocking word in the English language to refer to human feces.
I don’t use it in explaining this passage – because of local societal and cultural sensibilities it would literally distract from my point more than it would bring home the point of the text. Therefore it wouldn’t be wise to use it. I’ve been known to say “Paul used the strongest most shocking word available to him in his language to demonstrate that he now views his works and traditions as human feces when compared to the excellencies of knowing Christ…i’m not going to use the strongest word available in our language this morning – but I think you get the point.” – this way I’ve conveyed the intent of the passage – without causing distraction and offending anyone.
However if someone in another cultural atmosphere appropriately used the S word (genuinely absent intention to “look cool” or “puff themselves up” and not as avenue to be sinfully provocative) but for the sole purpose of conveying the actual point of the text – I think I might consider that acceptable.
We might disagree on this – but hey that’s OK we’ve disagreed on other things and are still friends.
Somehow shock and LOL doesn’t sound as impressive as shock and awe.
Some make this issue of profanity harder than it needs to be. In Ephesians 4:22 Paul tells the believer to put off the old man and in verse 24 he says we are to put on the new man. Paul then describes what this will look like. Those that steal no longer will steal but get a job and give to those in need.
In verse 29 Paul says do not let any corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying. Piper says this corrupt communication is “rotten words.” Jesus was clear it is what comes out of man that condemns them for that is an indicator of the heart.
Rather than fretting over a list of approved vocabulary words the believer should be more interested in their communication. If our communication resembles the same communication we had when we were lost we need to do some disrobing and robing.
Good point.
And I think that is what both the prophets and Paul used as a rubric. They used the best language to communicate a truth.
In Paul’s case, the very best way to communicate his feelings about the culture, heritage, and religion of his youth was to describe it as skubala. It was a shocking word, not one normally expected to be used in such a letter. It was the best one he could use.
In the case of his disdain for the circumcision party, nothing could quite as well express his utter disdain for those who trusted religious ritual and Jewish law for salvation, those who were turning the church away from grace, than to express the desire that they go all the way and cut “it” off so that they could not reproduce.
In both these cases, it was the best way for him to communicate the word of God.
The same is true in the prophets. They were conveying God’s disgust for the sinful spiritual adultery of Israel and did so in graphic terms, because softsoap was simply not appropriate.
Their goal was not being cool, or shocking, but accurately communicating truth and impacting the audience for God.
Write a post on I Kings 16:11 KJV.
I’m assuming, Dean, that you’ve seen this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo3o4nfiG7A
This is Worley from a few years ago.
“The problem with America is the president %*}*s sitting down.”
This may offer a clue to his passion about transgender bathroom habits.
Had you not seen that before?
Had you not seen that before?
And I wonder how “Pastor” Anderson knows about the president’s bathroom habits.
I had seen it but I totally forgot about it until you linked it.
Dave,
lol about the video. Good gracious. lol
David