Insults in Christianity: A short essay

In the header image of this article, you see two characters from an old children’s TV show called “Hounded”: The titular Rufus Hound, and his arch nemesis, Dr. Muhaha. I remember very little from the show, but I do remember one scene where Rufus has been captured, and is standing before Muhaha. “Hello Poofus”, he says, subsequently bragging about how he combined “Rufus” and “poo”. Rufus endures it stoically before replying “yes, very clever. Dr. Poohaha”.

The online world regularly displays a very similar pattern. Back in May of 2026, one of my Facebook posts addressing Catholicism “blew up”, attracting more than 300 comments before I finally switched the permissions to followers only. Not everyone who commented had good intentions. One man in particular posted several comments, and in 100% of them, he used the phrase “Protestard”.

I’ve never understood why people use this particular kind of insult. You can combine “tard” with just about anything. How easy would it be to turn around and call him “Catholitard”? It even rolls off the tongue better. But what would that actually do? What does it communicate other than “I’m not here to talk, I’m here to antagonise”?

Admittedly, there is a place for insults in Christianity. The modern culture has absorbed this strange myth that Christians should only ever be a bunch of cute, fluffy bunnies who just tolerate anything and everything without showing a hint of resistance. And if you know the first thing about the Bible, it’s not hard to see why. If you know more than the first thing about the Bible, however, you know that this caricature is entirely illusory.

Of course, that doesn't mean Christians can just say what we want, when we want, with no restrictions at all. Jesus warned that we will be judged for every idle word (Matthew 12:36). James tells us the tongue is like a rudder for the whole body (James 3). Paul warns us that we should speak only that which is good and necessary for edification that it may give grace to the hearer (Ephesians 4:29).

However, that restraint is not absolute. We have a far wider range of communication available to us. There are times in which a harsher approach is more appropriate. The prophets, the Apostles, even the Lord Himself, all exemplify this. They didn’t constantly blast away at every sincere question, and in fact, they never reacted aggressively to gentleness. But what we see is they regularly matched severity of error with severity of speech. When they encountered hypocrisy, they called it out. When they faced false doctrine, they shredded it. When they confronted false teachers, neither the idol nor those who promoted it were off limits. Depending on their intended audience, they were more than capable of switching between gentleness and sarcasm, between respect and castigation, or between kindness and insults.

The key is our speech has to actually mean something. We don't look for excuses to use insults, and it's certainly not our default state. But if we resort to insults (and I really do mean to emphasise "if"), those insults have to carry the weight of the point we’re trying to make with them. I call these “tactical insults”. They are supposed to illustrate the point we're trying to make, they're not designed to denigrate our opponents, and they can’t be as easily reversed.

Going back to the example of Catholicism, you may occasionally hear me refer to them as “Johnnys”. This is because of how they like to use John 19:26-27. In this verse, Jesus entrusts Mary to the disciple He loved (and apparently the only one who loved Him enough to approach Him on the cross). This verse is clearly specific to John. Jesus isn’t bestowing some spiritual motherhood upon Mary, so that all Catholics may call her theirs. But many Catholics understand it this way. I even remember one scoffing at me “but I suppose I’m reading too much into that verse too?” Well, yes, yes she was. So I call Catholics “Johnnys”, not to antagonise them, but to highlight the absurdity of stretching this verse so far beyond its context. It illustrates the shameful nature of twisting God’s Holy word, and communicates to Catholics in a way that even they understand what I'm saying.

Another one I’m fond of, which is far more wide-reaching (though admittedly easier to turn around) is “oink back off to your sty, you won’t get another pearl from me”. This is a direct reference to Matthew 7:6, where Jesus Himself warns us not to cast pearls before swine, lest they trample you and tear you apart. This insult, saved for the correct moment, communicates to an opponent that I no longer consider engaging with them worthwhile, but it also tells them why. It says I do have a good word for them, but they aren’t behaving in a manner conducive to receiving it.

Tactical insults like this go beyond carnal mockery. But of course, they’re not perfect either. The fact that so many perish shows that some people would never believe under any circumstances. Some are always going to be swine. As Christ commands, and even exemplified with Judas, we are to love them anyway. Stooping to their level is of no more use to you than it is to them.

AI usage

The image depicting three Biblical insults was created using ChatGPT.