Unwrapping the "F-Word" and Other Forbidden Language
March 21, 2010
The Reverend Anne Felton Hines
The story that I recall (whether it’s true or not is another question!) is that when my grandmother – a very proper lady from England – learned back in the mid-‘60s that my older brother had become a writer for Rolling Stone magazine, she bought herself a copy of it, and rather than being simply shocked at the language contained therein, researched the etymology of some of that language. And what she discovered was that most of those “forbidden” words had originally been perfectly acceptable in early England, until some group conquered it and drove much of the language underground. And that’s where the “F-word” and other words deemed inappropriate in “polite company” have remained.
Now, I don’t know if I’m remembering the story correctly; no one else in my family seems willing or able to corroborate it, but that’s never stopped me from telling it; it’s a good story!
Nor do I know if the results of my grandmother’s supposed research are correct. The research I’ve done has said nothing to indicate that she was right. Indeed, her research results aren’t even mentioned in any of the “urban myths” about profanity. Nevertheless, it’s always made sense to me that much of the language we forbid our children and even late-night talk show hosts from using, isn’t inherently offensive, but was deemed so by some conquering force wishing to wield its new power. So I’m sticking to that account! J
What I did learn in my research, however, was the derivation of that word: “profanity” – or “profane,” which apparently evolves from the Latin word meaning “outside the Temple.” Profanity, then, was language not used by the religious institutions; in other words, it was merely the language of the people, and somehow it then evolved into being language that shouldn’t be used anywhere. Which supports my theory that some of our disdain for certain words is grounded in issues of class.
But I raised my children during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s – a time when many of us rebelled against the idea that any words were inherently bad. We believed it was how words were used that posed the problem, not what words. So my husband and I taught out children that they could say whatever they wished, as long as what they said didn’t demean another person or group of people.
Still, our overall culture back then was pretty adamant about what was considered too profane to speak in public – which is why comedian George Carlin developed his now-famous monologue on the “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” – all of them words that are still deemed too unacceptable for me to utter from this pulpit!
Jon Stewart is pretty free with his language on his late-night show, but most of his profanities still get “bleeped” out. And even Bill Maher apologized on his show this past Friday night for using the “F-word,” explaining that because it’s HBO, he has to use it! Since Maher freely tosses that and other 4-letter words around on his show, I don’t know why he suddenly decided to apologize for it this time; but it got a laugh.
There seem to be four areas that “polite society” still frowns on in public conversation: Sex (which is perhaps why so many words about it are censored!), politics, religion and money.
And we Unitarian Universalists kind of pride ourselves on not conforming to those rules. We speak openly from our church pulpits and elsewhere about sex and sexuality, about political issues, and about religion. We do seem to still have some difficulty with that fourth area, however; we still act as if the subject of money is more profane than the other three. If we talk about it at all from the pulpit, it’s relegated to only once a year.
We UUs have our own set of “f-words”: “Finance,” “Fundraising,” and “Financial Support!”
Indeed, those of us working on this year’s Stewardship campaign (an “s-word” we don’t much like) were so concerned that some of you might stay home this morning if you knew this would be my annual “sermon on the amount,” that we decided to give it a title that wouldfool you into coming. Manipulative, I know, and not a practice of which I am proud. But sometimes the situation calls for extreme measures.
Now, I don’t want to pretend that I don’t share your uneasiness in talking about money; I do. But when almost all the experts in church fundraising, including my younger brother who spoke here two weeks ago, stress the importance of talking openly about it – of stating not only what’s expected of people, but also including individual testimonies as to how much people contribute to their church – then I need to pay attention to that advice. These same experts also contend that by publicly honoring the largest financial contributors to the church, those contributors will not only increase their giving, but will inspire others to increase their giving as well.
Yet whenever we’ve tried to follow those models here at Emerson (and, in truth, at every other small UU church I’ve served), we have been met with great resistance…and I do understand that.
It feels “elitist” to single out those who can afford to give more money to the church. Honoring those who have chosen to use their financial abundance to help the church (as opposed to those who have abundance but choose not to contribute generously to their church), feels as if we’re somehow denigrating those who simply can’t afford to contribute as much of their financial resources. We worry about hurting or shaming them.
That’s a valid concern; we should be sensitive to people’s circumstances and feelings. That’s why several years ago, we asked people to estimate what percentage of their income their pledge to Emerson represented. In this way, we figured, we’d be able to celebrate those who were truly giving their “fair share” – whether that amounted to $300 a year from someone earning only $10,000 annually; or $6500 a year from someone earning $100,000 annually.
But most of you declined to supply that information. I don’t know whether you just didn’t know how to calculate the percentage (this year we’ve included in the brochure a chart to make it easier for you!), or if you were afraid it wouldn’t look like you were giving enough; or maybe you just felt it was none of our business. But I do think it was another sign of our aversion to money talk.
What I find interesting about our unwillingness to talk openly about our financial giving, is that we don’t feel the same uneasiness in celebrating how much time individuals give to the church. Next Saturday night, at our big gala – the “Waldo Awards Ceremony” – we’ll be honoring a number of Emersonians for all the time and energy they’ve devoted to the church. And I’m hearing no concerns about that recognition. Surely there are some folks who feel bad about not being able to give as much of their time to Emerson as they’d like, because of other time constraints in their life. But none of us think of this practice of honoring volunteers as “elitist.”
Yet if next Saturday evening we also gave awards to those who have contributed the most money to Emerson – even if it were based solely on percentage of income instead of dollar amount, I suspect many recipients would refuse to accept the award, and might even stay home.
So we don’t do that. Indeed, we have a policy of confidentiality here at Emerson, to ensure that no one’s amount of financial contribution is ever known beyond a very small group of people who need to know. And I support that policy; I just wonder why our culture finds it such a sensitive area of our lives that it needs to be protected from view, and why UUs feel equally strong about it. Why is there so much shame, or guilt, or whatever it is around that “f-word,” “financial resources,” or “m-word,” “money?”
Last Fall, we, as a congregation, determined three main Visions for our beloved church: We wanted to become a greater influence for good in the wider community; we wanted to expand our staff; and we wanted to enlarge our space or the use of our existing space.
Based on those Visions, your Board of Trustees has been developing a five-year Strategic Plan. In the first year alone, they plan to lead us through a process of choosing a congregational-wide social justice project, move us toward the first steps in becoming a “Green Sanctuary,” and develop a solid publicity strategy in order to encourage our growth. It’s quite exciting!
But of course, none of that replaces our ongoing efforts to grow our music program, enhance Religious Education, and sustain all the other fine ministries at this church. And all of these efforts are going to require additional energy from staff, as well as increased use of utilities, maintenance of the building, and all the other costs that are associated with a thriving congregation.
If you were here two weeks ago, you heard my younger brother speak about the importance of moving beyond our individual fears of financial scarcity, into the transforming realization of abundance, and giving out of that reality. While acknowledging that we are living in times of economic insecurity, my brother admonished us all to “start believing that we can get through this and move forward….It is up to us,” he said, “to choose faith over fear.”
And then he suggested that we look at how much money we give away – whether to Emerson alone or to other causes we care about – not in terms of whether we can afford to give away 3, or 5, or even 10% of our income, but whether we can live on 97, or 95, or even only 90% of our income. When we ask this question, we may find that, in fact, we have more than we realized – and can therefore give more than we realized.
Now I know that some of you truly have no more discretionary money than what you’re already contributing to Emerson, and I am so grateful for what you give. And truly, I have no idea what anyone’s income is, and what kinds of mandatory expenses any of you face in your lives.
All I ask is that we each take seriously the gifts this church gives not only to us, but to others as well. And I ask that we take seriously the difference Emerson could make if we were to breathe life into our Visions. As Rebecca Parker suggests in this morning’s Meditation, we pray that “those who come after us find beauty made more lovely and sorrow eased, because we were here.” That is our vision – to create that “beloved community” here and beyond these walls
Next Saturday night is primarily an evening to have fun together, and to celebrate some of the marvelous people who have contributed to the vitality of our religious home. There will be unusually scrumptious desserts, outrageously clever songs, a hysterically funny andinspirational program, and the opportunity to make your pledge for the financial support of Emerson’s future. You don’t need to bring your checkbook, just your love, laughter and generous spirit. We’ll even provide pens!
And if you absolutely cannot attend the event, then please pick up a Pledge Form today from the table in the Pavilion, take it home with you and fill it out, and then mail it or bring it to the church within the next couple of weeks! Otherwise, some of your friends here are going to have to send you a letter or e-mail, or call you on the phone, and keep after you to return it to us. Be a good sport; don’t put that extra burden on them.
In return, I promise you that I won’t again shield the real topic of a sermon about money behind some clever but slightly misleading title; I will trust that will fully enter the conversation about funding our faith whenever it comes up. Because we all do love this church, and want to see it thrive. We all want to see our Unitarian Universalist Principles of compassion, justice and peace embodied in the world. We all want to participate in the transformation of lives; and we know that it’s up to each of us to make that happen.
Annie Dillard has said, “Nothing is more gladdening than knowing we must roll up our sleeves and move back the boundaries of the humanly possible once more.” Won’t you join me in that great and joyous endeavor?
May it always be so. Amen.
© 2010 Rev Anne Felton Hines. All rights reserved.
