Current Issues

Donate to The Campus Ministry USA

Thank you for your interest in CMUSA! Bro. Jed and Company are sharing the Gospel on a college campus every school day from the middle of August through the first week of June. Our travel expenses are covered by the generous donations of people like you who believe in our mission. You are a vital part of the work! Thank you for joining the team.

You may give to CMUSA electronically by clicking the donate button below. 

Or you may mail your check to our home office:

CMUSA Bro. Jed Smock

PO Box 3845

Terre Haute IN 47803

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Donate Today!

Civil Rights Today

Today we are hearing a lot about civil rights. Our founders enunciated and fought for unalienable rights, which are rights that cannot be taken away or transferred, because they are birth rights bestowed by God.

Civil rights are rights defined and given by civil authority. The problem with the concept of civil rights is that the same rights bestowed by civil authority can later be taken away or transferred.

There is no natural right to vote. In early America voting was largely limited to property owners. Voting should be considered a privilege, not a right. Nor is there any God-given right to force property owners to serve a particular group of people.

There is no such thing as “gay” rights. No one has the right to sodomy.

There is an inherent right for property owners to discriminate, if they are so inclined based upon race, religion or simply because they do not like particular or peculiar groups of people.

Oh, that our politicians would become statesmen and once again defend unalienable rights. Unalienable rights have been sacrifice on the altar of civil rights.

Frankly, I am not as impressed with the blood that John Lewis spilled on that bridge in Selma as I am with the blood shed by the American minutemen at the North Bridge in Concord. Few school boys today are learning of minutemen, Thomas Smith, Patrick Gray, and James Hall, who were shot and killed by the British on that notable day in 1775.



Vulgarity Defended!

by Bro Cope

The Use of Questionable Language.

(Not for children.)

Recently there has been a lot of debate among the OAP’s over our use of what they consider to be “filthy language”. They have judged us very harshly even to the point of declaring us backslidden and in mortal sin. We did not go to them and tell them how they ought to preach. They came to us and demanded the right to tell us how we were to preach.

What has been upsetting to our accusers is the use of certain words, like Bro. Jed’s talk on “Sex Ed”, but especially the “F”-word. However, none of us use that word that I know of, yet this seems to be the focal point of our condemnation. In reality, we are being condemned because we will not condemn the use of the “F”-word. Not using it is not enough, we must condemn its use or we can’t possibly be saved.

I want to stress again that our position is not to advocate the use of certain words, but only to contend that God is Bro Copesovereign. To assert that He could not use a certain word is to place God under a law, or to esteem one’s sense of propriety above His. We have not endorsed the use of certain words, and in general we do not use them. What we are being condemned for is refusing to denounce their use.

God is not constrained by any standard that we might think to place on Him. The very first thing that Jesus does when He returns is to kill 200,000,000 soldiers in the valley of Megiddo, and in doing so He washes His feet in their blood. To think that He is squeamish about the use of certain words seems rather ludicrous to me.

Before I talk about the issue at hand, I think we need to ask a different question. The question really is not would God use a particular word, but what has God used in the past. We can gauge some of His character and behavior by what He has done in the past. So the question I want to talk about is what Has God done and said in the Bible that violate this standard being put forth by some preachers. If God has done or said something, then to condemn it puts you as a judge over God.

Over the years, I have come across examples where the prophets of God used rather explicit, even vulgar, terms.

Choosing the Vulgar

1Co 1:...27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

I wondered, what exactly are "base things"? the Greek word was:

36. agenhv agenes, ag-en-ace'
properly, without kin, i.e. (of unknown descent, and by implication) ignoble:--base things.

Ignoble? But what does ignoble mean?

Definition of ignoble
1: of low birth or common origin : plebeian
2: characterized by baseness, lowness, or meanness

That didn’t tell me much. What is plebeian, lowness or meanness? Instead of looking up plebeian, lowness or meanness, I looked at the synonyms for ignoble:

baseborn, common, humble, inferior, low, lowborn, lower-class, low-life, lowly, lumpen, mean, plebeian, proletarian, unwashed, vulgar

Low-life? Lumpen? Unwashed? Vulgar?

God has chosen the base things of this world, the despised things, to bring to nought the things that are. I consider this whole tumult to be God bringing the self image of these opposing preachers to the forefront. It is by this controversy that we learn that the opposing preachers are not willing to be base things, debased or low or unwashed or vulgar, for the Lord. Their self image revolts against that debasement. Bro. Jed and I have been sold out entirely for years, and we are willing to be utterly debased for the Lord. Apparently they would not debase themselves even if God commanded. They see themselves as above being debased. They need to ask the naked prophets about their sense of propriety.

God’s Naked Prophets

Is 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

Isaiah was not the only person to preach naked. While Isaiah did do it for 3 years, Saul also prophesied naked.

vagina costume
1 Sam 19:20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.
21 And when it was told Saul, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. And Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also.
22 Then went he also to Ramah, and came to a great well that is in Sechu: and he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And one said, Behold, they be at Naioth in Ramah.
23 And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah.
24 And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

Apparently the Holy Spirit coming on people SOMETIMES causes them to strip naked and preach. In Isaiah’s case God commanded it because of a compelling interest He had in getting the message across. Was God afraid of offending people? Was He prudish in modesty? Was he concerned about the propriety of His commandment? Apparently in these two cases God thought it best to have them preaching stark naked. To say that God cannot command such a thing is to judge God Himself. Under this standard, these men would have been condemned.

Teats, Labia, and Penises

Eze 23:2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3 And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity.
Eze 23:20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
21 Thus thou calledst to remembrance the lewdness of thy youth, in bruising thy teats by the Egyptians for the paps of thy youth.

Here the prophet Ezekiel was describing the squeezing and fondling of Ahollah and Aholibah's teats or paps. Today we call them tits - a variant of teats. He also talks about the flesh of asses and the seminal discharge of horses. That is referring to the “membrum virile”, very LARGE penises. Asses have very large penises. And horses have a whole lot of ejaculate.

01320. rsb basar, baw-sawr'
from 1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extension, body, person; also (by euphemism.) the pudenda of a man:--body, (fat, lean) flesh(-ed), kin, (man-)kind, + nakedness, self, skin.

noun \pyu̇-ˈden-dəm\
Definition of PUDENDUM
: the external genital organs of a human being and especially of a woman —usually used in plural

The word translated “flesh” is a euphemism for the pudenda of a male - penis. Ahollah and Ahollibah were attracted to the very large penises of their paramours, and the large amount of their semen.

Eze 16:26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.

“Great of flesh” again is to say “very large penis”.

Pudenda, referring to a woman’s labia

Ez 16:36 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness [ervah] discovered [galah] through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominationstow`[ebah], and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them

06172. hwre `ervah, er-vaw'
from 6168; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish):--nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).

01540. hlg galah, gaw-law'
a primitive root; to denude (especially in a disgraceful sense);

08441. hbewt tow`ebah, to-ay-baw'
or tonebah {to-ay-baw'}; feminine active participle of 8581; properly, something disgusting (morally), i.e. (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol:-- abominable (custom, thing), abomination.

Here we have God speaking through Ezekiel talking about female body parts, and being exposed in a disgraceful, abominable manner. I don't know folks, this is racy stuff. Perverse and corrupt? According to the standard by which we are being judged, you bet. According to God, not so much.

Spread Your Legs

Eze 16:25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet [regel] to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.

"opening thy feet" is the KJV way of saying "spreading your legs".

The word translated feet is:
07272. lgr regel, reh'-gel
from 7270; a foot (as used in walking); by implication, a step; by euphemism. the pudenda:--X be able to endure, X according as, X after, X coming, X follow, ((broken-))foot((-ed, -stool)), X great toe, X haunt, X journey, leg, + piss, + possession, time.

It is a euphemism for the pudenda or the labia of women.

So here we have God saying to Israel, you spread your legs, you open up your genitals for everyone who passes by.

Is that not a base thing to say? This standard would say a resounding yes, but they would be condemning God’s prophet Ezekiel, and God by extension.


Ez 16:17 Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,

Now I don’t know about you but to me this reads like those being rebuked were making an image of a man’s penis and then having sex with it. Of course you might be unwilling to accept what it says and so spiritualize it to mean something else, but just as it is read, it sounds to me like a dildo.


: an object resembling a penis used for sexual stimulation
origin unknown
First Known Use: 1598

If the first known use of the word dildo was 1598, then the prophet Ezekiel certainly did not have that word in his lexicon, but it sure seems to me that he described one.

Women’s Menstruous Rags

Eze 16:22 And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood

Is 30:22 Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.

Lam 1:17 Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them.

Song of Solomon

I won’t even bother to copy verses from this book. While some like to spiritualize the language, the book in its original text is downright sexual. It reads in places like a racy romance novel. There are mentions of breasts, Solomon placing his hand on his beloved’s privates and her subsequent arousal (Song 5:4), and more. Anyone who condemns racy language will have a BIG problem with this book being in the cannon.

Commanding Human Sacrifice

In His sovereignty, God can command anything He chooses – like sacrificing your own son and making him a burnt offering. We all know this story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac. My point is not about human sacrifice, but what God could or couldn’t command. In this case, God commanded Abraham to do something we all know is a great evil, that God Himself condemns. But in fact He did command Abraham to do it. God can command anything He chooses, even if it appears to go against what we know to be true. God could command that you throw your own mother and father into the lake of fire.

Lu 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

The question is would you do it? I would. As much as I love my mother and father, if commanded to throw them in, I would obey because I love Jesus more.


Using a Lying Spirit

The Lord just reminded me of another instance when God behaved in a way that we would consider ungodly, outside the box. He worked His will through lies. He actually employed lies.

1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

That last verse is of great interest. The lying spirit was put there by GOD. God will act as He will act, in whatever manner He chooses. God is not subjected to any Law of behavior. He cannot be forced to behave in this way or that way. Your judgment is trying to place on God some external code of behavior by which He must act. God can and will be profane if He chooses. He has already shown Himself as racy and vulgar at times past.

All I have done is to point out places in the Bible where God or His prophets have behaved in a way that would be condemned by this standard. Am I lying about what the Bible says because I think that your understanding of the Bible is incomplete? If our understanding of what the preaching is supposed to accomplish differs from yours are we now accused of preaching another gospel?

Keep this in mind. We are not disagreeing with what the Bible says. I just quoted it. One cannot disagree with the Bible by quoting it. One does disagree with the Bible when one takes what it obviously says and denies what it says or that it is truth.

We are disagreeing with this standard because we believe our understanding is a better alignment of what the Bible says. When you see God doing something you can't understand, you must recognize the holes in your understanding and seek God for the understanding. God is not the one who is in error.

Is God afraid of "bad words"?

Are we disallowed using "hung like a donkey", "ejaculate like a horse", pressing her teats, whore, whoremonger, dog, moron, snakes, vipers, serpents, devils, etc, even though the prophets of God did? Do we appoint someone whose tender sensitivities define what constitutes corrupt and perverse speech?

Supposedly to some, they think that God is concerned on how we and He appear to the world. The idea of God being defamed is ludicrous. Where can He go from despised and rejected? Jesus is not concerned about being defamed. He wears “despised and rejected” as a mantle of honor.

Lu 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

We cannot by our words cause anyone to do anything. Even God doesn't mess with free will. But some seem to think that the preacher’s words can do something that even God will not do. Are our words more, powerful than God? All we can do by our preaching is to bring out what is already in the audience’s hearts. That is the purpose of preaching - to expose to truth. We cannot by our words change what is in their hearts. All we can do is bring it out.

We cannot by our words take a heart that loves God and cause them to hate God. We cannot take a heart which justifies and defends sin and make it love God. That is their choice. We can only force them to see what is already in their heart, for out of the heart are the issues of life.

What this attack is showing also comes out of hearts. By what comes out of a man's mouth we can judge what is in his heart. It is being framed as if we are subjecting Jesus to unnecessary reproach, that we are holding Jesus up to a bad light, that we are giving the wrong impression of what Christians are. The question is not about defaming Jesus, because He doesn’t care what the world thinks. He said He was despised and rejected, and that is the way it has to be. Since He also said we also would be despised and rejected, that is the way it must be for us also. This issue is bringing out of the accusing OAP’s hearts what is there. They are either concerned about how Jesus is perceived, which is not their place to do, or they are concerned about how they will be perceived.

Jesus promised that we would be despised and rejected because He was despised and rejected first. If they are concerned about either side of this equation, they are more concerned about not having to be the recipients of the greatest gift God has ever given us.

Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

I can’t believe I have to tell you these things. Any person who is concerned about either Jesus’ reputation, Christian’s reputations, or their reputation are on the path to destruction.

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Any attempt at trying to rehabilitate Christ or His image is rooted in the love of the world. More specifically it is evidence of a heart that is not willing to join Jesus in all of His debasement, hatred, and rejection. They try to rehabilitate Jesus so they won’t have to join Him in the place of His rejection and hatred.

One thing I know is that Jesus is not concerned about being defamed. He actually is trying to restore to the church the great blessing of being despised and rejected. The purpose of the negative image of Jesus and His followers has been to keep out the fakes, the tares the enemy sows to destroy the church, and to keep us pure of the corruption that comes from association with the world. Those who love the Lord are not dissuaded by being an outcast, despised, and rejected. Those who still love the world and themselves will not join up with the Lord in His debasement.

Mt 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Jesus called people morons, a fox, called one woman a dog, sons of the devil, He even called Peter Satan. His audience was described in very many harsh terms. They were vipers, hypocrites, and white washed tombs. He did not spare with His words.

Haven't you ever been preaching and had people who call themselves Christian confess and defend their sin. When that happens to me I am filled with wrath. Every doctrine that mitigates sin or weakens a believer's will to resist, or makes sin not the sole issue in the world comes from only one set of lips. He hisses between his serpent lips "Ye shall not surely die..."

Well, when God fills me with His wrath and indignation, the gloves come off, so to speak. His prompting becomes extremely strong, especially when I am trying to get the students to see that what they are defending is vile beyond measure. I want to make it even more vile to them. It is easy to think "gay rights", as long as you don't take in to account the despicable and profoundly evil things they do. The sole purpose of a euphemism is to take away the vileness of certain acts. It allows the speaker to gloss over the evil being done by calling it a more benign word, one without the sting of condemnation.

There have been times when the prompting was strong, and I used terms you would not approve of. Afterwards I sought the Lord as to whether the prompting was from Him or whether what I said was out of line. I can remember maybe twice the response was yes. But the rest of the time the answer was always no.

Some of the times have been with Bro. Jed, and we would discuss it. We have had several discussions on this very issue. On occasion he would advise me to tone it down, and I would, not because I thought I misread the leading, but because I respect Bro. Jed more than any other living man.

This whole issue is not one that has arisen because of Bro. Jed's unthinking blurting out of shock words. We have discussed just about every word that we use AT LENGTH. We seek the Lord continually as to the boundaries and have drawn the boundaries with thought and prayer. He is not using the language he does out of ignorance, but after years of testing the promptings of the Spirit.

I have concluded that the words themselves are not evil. It is the way in which they are used, the intent behind the words that is either evil or good. Take for example the word "nigger". When used in the context of denouncing and crying out against racism, or in describing what racists say, it is morally neutral. When applied to a man, it is evil.

We are accused of vulgarity, but we don't share your definition of vulgarity. It does not work when taking in the entirety of the Bible.

With all this discussion, I am dismayed that no one asked a simple question. What is filthy talk? Obviously, since the prophets used vulgar terms, filthy talk can't be determined by the words used. Otherwise, Ezekiel would have been guilty of "filthy talk" when he used the slang term for women's labia, or when he talked about Aholah and Aholibah getting their breasts squeezed and fondled, or when he accused them of going after exceptionally well endowed men with a lot of ejaculate, or when he spoke of making dildos and having sex with them. The words that were used were vulgar.

But Ezekiel was trying to convict Israel of their gross sin against God, and used vulgar words to convey to Israel just how vulgar and vile their sin against God was. That is why Bro. Jed uses what you think as vulgar words - to convey to the students just how debauched and perverse they are.

I think Bro. Jed is rather tame, given the profound perversion he is dealing with. I'm a man who likes to call a spade a spade. There are many much worse terms that could be used.

Now if Bro. Jed, were trying to SEDUCE these students by speaking perverse things in such a way as to entice them into doing the sins, then I would say that is filthy talk. But that is not what Bro. Jed is trying to do. He wants the students to be ashamed, to feel defiled and dirty, to be repulsed by the vile things that they love.

We hold that which they love up to ridicule and condemnation. I don't think that can qualify as filthy talk. The intention of the speaker, not the words themselves, is what defines filthy talk. Filthy talk originates as a temptation to sin.

It's as Bro. Jed says on campus. If you want to find a girl to have sex with, tell her a dirty joke. If she laughs (a positive response to the filthy suggestion), you know you will probably succeed. Filthy talk is testing the waters. Filthy talk is priming the pump. Filthy talk is making a veiled suggestion. Filthy talk is an attempt to get someone to sin with you.

Filthy talk is not pleading for repentance from those vile things. Using the same words with the intention of convincing someone that the act being considered is vile, profane, and perverse, has righteousness as the goal, not getting someone to sin with you.

If I used the phrase “I want to taste your cookies”, all the words in that sentence are benign. Or how about “Would you like your oil checked with my dipstick”? Again, all words are benign. But when spoken as a double entendre, the innuendo makes the sentences filthy talk. Filthy talk is determined not by the words, but by the intent of the heart.

For that matter, euphemisms, like the term “F”-word, are the same as using the original word. A Euphemism is defined as the substitution of an less offensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant. Everybody knows what word is being referred to. So when those who accuse us of impropriety use that term, they have used the word itself, and the judgment they have made condemns them also.

To a young preacher

I would counsel you to not use words that you are not comfortable with because to do so would be sin for you, even if the words are something benign - like sinner.

Ro 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Does this only apply to food? I think the principle is true on a wider sense. There is nothing unclean of itself. There is nothing unclean about sex unless it is done outside of marriage or the natural use. Same goes for words. It is what they are intended to do that determines if they are unclean.

For you to violate your conscience would be wrong. For us to violate our conscience would be wrong.

For us to violate your conscience is not wrong, unless we entice you to violate it too. Then it is wrong. Otherwise, Romans 14 teaches for you to stop judging another man's servant.

We have addressed the boundaries for years and our consciences do not condemn us for the language we use. That you think your conscience is defiled is not our concern unless we have enticed you to violate your own conscience. If that were the case, we would be in sin. But your understanding of the Bible being different from our understanding, ours having been drawn from many years of prayer and introspection, does not place us in sin. We live and stand before the Lord based on our faith and obedience.

P.S.  I came across another example when God called women COWS:

Am 4:1  Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, Who oppress the poor, Who crush the needy, Who say to your husbands, "Bring wine, let us drink!" 2 The Lord GOD has sworn by His holiness: "Behold, the days shall come upon you When He will take you away with fishhooks, And your posterity with fishhooks. 3 You will go out through broken walls, Each one straight ahead of her, And you will be cast into Harmon," Says the LORD.




Donate to CMUSA

Sign Up Now

The Four Questions

  • Origin? Meaning? Morals? Destiny?

    The Four Questions What is the origin of life? What is the meaning of life? What is the source of morality? What is our destiny?  Daily on campus we tell the students that any religion or philosophy has to answer the questions of origin, meaning, morals...



Word From Bro. Jed

  • Get Angry Church

    Since November 3, we have heard from fake news of President Trump “ranting and raging” in the WH. They say that he is “unhinged” and “losing his mind,” etc, etc. These are based on “anonymous...