Let me state this plainly and as lovingly as this constrained digital format permits. If one cannot distinguish blasphemous filth that denies the faith from the true faith, he is so nearsighted as to be blind. He forgets that “bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33) and that we are to “touch no unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:17). He has no business holding office, leading, teaching, or publishing. He is in the milk stage (Heb. 5:11-14), and ought to examine himself and pray humbly to God to free him from the dullness and bewitchment which have ensnared him.

A correspondent disputes my denunciation of Francis Spufford as a heretic. Others disagree with my disapproval of Spufford’s profanity, arguing that Paul used such speech (Gk. skubala, Phil. 3:8), or else that it is a trifle. The objections boil down to a) Spufford’s not a heretic; b) Spufford has issues but it is not a fault to quote him approvingly; and c) profane speech is excusable/understandable when discussing the matters Spufford (and by extension, Greg Johnson) handle. I disagree.

Now denouncing someone is unpleasant, and not something to be done lightly. I was informed of the material I covered in my previous article in late 2021. I mentioned it previously (Nov., 2022, Jun., 2024) but still sat on it for a long time before publicizing. I did so because I’m aware that I must give account for what I say at the Last Judgment. If I denounce someone, I wish to be truthful and in the right for doing so. People also have a tendency to repent, even if it takes a while, and it is good to hope for that (2 Tim. 2:25) and give them time to do so (Rev. 2:21). If you read this or any of my other articles viz. Spufford, Johnson, or any other person I’ve criticized, I fully expect for you to pray for them to abide in the truth. To fail to do so is to misunderstand my purpose and to be derelict in your Christian duty.

I used heretic as shorthand for ‘someone who denies historic orthodoxy while professing to be Christian.’ This is its traditional use in ecclesiastical and theological polemics, but scripture has a somewhat different usage. If it’s preferable, one can substitute false teacher for heretic and my meaning stands.

Either way, it is a mark of a heretic that he believes he is orthodox.

Spufford meets that criteria, saying “I am a fairly orthodox Christian” (p. 18). He also departs from orthodoxy radically. He says things like:

I am not arguing that Christianity is true and atheism isn’t. I do not know any such thing, and couldn’t. I have no problem with respecting atheism as a philosophy, as an emotional position grounded in experience, and (on occasion) as a tool of liberation. (Pref.)

He quotes Psalm 91 only to say it “is not true” (90), while he elsewhere quotes the Quran approvingly (20). Scripture says “you shall not revile God” (Ex. 22:28), but Spufford quotes unbelievers cursing God and rejects a traditional understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence, “which would make said deity an immoral . . .” (19) and I’m not going to finish that quote, but no man would say the unstated thing to his boss, unless maybe he was resigning in a rage.

Spufford has no fear of God (which is “the beginning of wisdom,” Prov. 9:10), and uses terms like “sky fairy” in his musings. He mentions the Trinity once, in a way that sounds modalistic. (“God’s making, mending and sustaining aspects tidied up into ‘Father,’ ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Spirit,” 151.) Modalism is a heresy, regarded as such since the mid-200s. Spufford also denies hell (“Hell is still popular . . . but not with actual Christians, any more,” 181) and says “I don’t care about heaven” (165).

Two, it is confidently asserted that Paul said the equivalent of our ‘s-word’ in Philippians 3:8, and that only prudish translators have prevented it being translated accurately. When one turns to the Greek and New Testament scholars, one finds that it is not certain that skubala had a profane meaning. It’s a rare word which was elsewhere used in ways that don’t sound profane (the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus 27:4: “As when one sifteth with a sieve, the refuse remaineth; so the filth of man in his talk”), and which was apparently not profane in later generations. You can see the summary from which I draw this by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Seminary here, and a refutation that skubala is profane at all by Prof. Manning of Talbot Seminary here. In brief, it is probable but not certain that skubala was stark, but not that it would rise to the level of profanity/vulgarity that our contemporary ‘s-word’ has with many English speakers.

A single use of a single unclear term will not do to prove the permissibility of profanity for believers. (I also notice that those who argue that Philippians 3:8 proves it is acceptable for believers to swear don’t typically swear rarely and to make an important point about Christ, but frequently and to do things like complain about everyday frustrations. Even if Paul swore in Phil. 3:8, it was for the word’s shock value, which is entirely lost if one uses it regularly or in common situations.)

Others say that because what qualifies as profane varies between people, therefore it is a matter of relative manners, not absolute morality (as murder, theft, etc.). This is true, but also irrelevant. If a given word offends a brother – and many believers take strong umbrage to swearing – then you are not walking in love and are guilty on that account. We are to “give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all” (Rom. 12:17; comp. 2 Cor. 8:21). Swearing doesn’t do that.

As far as swearing in print not being disqualifying or grounds for censure in a minister, those who maintain that adhere to a strange position. In many workplaces a man would get fired for using such language. Should the church have a lower standard of integrity in speech than unbelievers and secular companies?

Or again, as regards Spufford’s blasphemy, a man who spoke of his superiors so revilingly would be dismissed. I worked at a place where a man denounced his director as a “moron” in private conversation at a private, off-site, after-hours party and was fired as a result. Should secular workplaces insist upon more respect for authority regarding sinful men than the Christian church for her Creator and Redeemer? Have you never read how God rebukes Israel on that point (Mal. 1:6):

A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the Lord of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name.

I must also point out that revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10)—and blasphemy is the ultimate form of reviling. Further, swearing and reviling in print are far worse than in speech. One might swear in speech when provoked or in hard circumstances, but one has plenty of time to calm down and think of a better word when writing. Often one can go back and ask something to be withdrawn in some cases. (N.B., Greg Johnson’s article I criticized on this point still stands unedited.) Saying a curse is doing it once in a passing moment. Writing it is setting it up as an enduring testimony. If “people will give account for every careless word they speak” (Matt. 12:36), how much more every deliberate word they publish perpetually!

Last on the swearing point, Spufford said that he did so to “express a serious and appropriate judgment on human destructiveness, in the natural language of that destructiveness” (Pref.). But God says that we are to “overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). God’s prophets denounced evil as strongly as it has ever been condemned, and they sometimes used graphic imagery to do so (e.g., Eze. 23:20), but they did not curse as Spufford does. When they cursed, they did so plainly (Jer. 17:5, “Cursed is the man who trust in man”) and by God’s authority (“men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” 2 Pet. 1:21), not from the depths of a blasphemous heart. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34). Indeed, speaking as Spufford does of such matters is the mark of a damned man (using that word in its proper, non-swearing sense):

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones . . . these people blaspheme all that they do not understand. (Jude1:8, 10; comp. 2 Pet. 2:1-21)

The “like manner” is in reference to demons (v. 6) and the citizens of Sodom (v. 7), and Spufford does most of those things. He dismisses concerns with sexual immorality, saying Jesus “expresses no opinions whatsoever about homosexuality, abortion, promiscuity . . . what we do in bed is not specially important to him” (118). Scripture regards such sins as flesh-defiling (Rom. 1:24; 2 Pet. 2:10), not insignificant, and says to “let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things [“sexual immorality,” v. 3] the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6). Jesus said to rip out your eye rather than lust and be “thrown into hell” for it (Matt. 5:29-30). Spufford speaks of “the Hebrew myth of the Fall in the second chapter of the Book of Genesis” and says “not only is this no good to us as history, as almost all Christians know, it isn’t even any use as story” (101-2). He says “we are now in the valuable position of being able to tell authority to [buzz] off” (p. 74). Some respect for authority, that, and of course Spufford blasphemes God himself.

The holy content themselves with simpler speech: “the LORD rebuke you” (the angel of the Lord, Zech. 3:2; Michael, Jude 1:9). Indeed, have you never read Isaiah’s complaint, how he says, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Isa. 6:5)? God did not tell him to speak to that people with their own unclean speech so as to “express a serious and appropriate judgment” on it. He cleansed Isaiah’s lips and sent him forth with holy speech (v. 7ff).

Now John says of a false teacher “do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting” (2 Jn. 1:10). If you are guilty of disobedience by saying ‘good morning’ to a false teacher, how much more if you read his book, quote it approvingly, celebrate it, or recommend it to others? Spufford is a blasphemer who denies essential elements of Christian faith and reduces Christianity to something that is emotionally comforting for some people. His book is one of the filthiest and most godless things I have ever read, and I cannot imagine any Christian reading it without his conscience screaming in absolute agony within him. And yet Greg Johnson quoted it approvingly, his presbytery acknowledging receipt of my complaint on that point all those years ago and doing, as near as I can tell, nothing of consequence about it.

Let me state this plainly and as lovingly as this constrained digital format permits. If one cannot distinguish blasphemous filth that denies the faith from the true faith, he is so nearsighted as to be blind. He forgets that “bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33)[1] and that we are to “touch no unclean thing” (2 Cor. 6:17). He has no business holding office, leading, teaching, or publishing. He is in the milk stage (Heb. 5:11-14), and ought to examine himself and pray humbly to God to free him from the dullness and bewitchment which have ensnared him.

And if one finds another stumbling on this point, it is his Christian duty to confront him in love (Galatians 6:1) and show him his error. All which is to say that, yes, Spufford is a false teacher who should not be read, much less quoted; doing so, or swearing otherwise, is unacceptable in Christian forums and by ministers; and that those (as presbyteries) who have oversight in such matters need to be diligent on this point and maintain discipline among us.

Tom Hervey is a member of Friendship Presbyterian Church in Laurens County, SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation, and helped modernize Volume I of James Hervey’s classic dialogue on evangelical faith, Theron and Aspasio, available now at Monergism.

[1] ‘But doesn’t Paul quote the Greek playwright Menander with that statement?’ someone might ask, ‘and aren’t Greek plays famous for their debauchery?’ Perhaps, though Menander had died about three and a half centuries before Paul wrote, and it is not certain if Paul knew he was quoting Menander or if this had entered the common speech of that time as a maxim.