Is it true, as one survey suggests, that 50% of Christian men and 20% of Christian women would say they are “addicted” to porn? Really? Has it gotten that bad in the church?
A recent study from Case Western Reserve University sheds some light on this subject. Researchers concluded that there is a strong relationship between religious belief and the perception that personal porn use is an “addiction.”
To be clear, the study did not see any relationship between religiosity to the actual use of porn. Christians don’t use porn any more or less than non-Christians (according to this study). Rather, a Christian who watches porn at a certain frequency is far more likely to say he or she is “addicted” than the non-religious person who uses porn at the same frequency.
Joshua Grubbs, the author of the study, commented, “We were surprised that the amount of viewing did not impact the perception of addiction, but strong moral beliefs did.”
The Church Needs to Speak Clearly to a Sexually Confused Culture
As far as critics are concerned, the answer is a relatively simple one: “What’s causing all the commotion about porn is not its use or misuse, but the rigid, prudish moral standard the dominates the Christian’s conscience. Loosen the moral standard and the perceived problem goes away.”
The first problem with this solution is that it is factually inaccurate. Whole online communities have cropped up in recent years (such as Reddit’s NoFap and PornFree groups), founded by and filled with ardently secular people who are experiencing porn-induced erectile dysfunction and talking about porn addiction as as serious problem.
Related: 10 Day Porn-Induced Erectile Dysfunction Recovery Challenge
The second problem with this solution is that this is unsustainable for the Christian. The church’s sexual ethic is not based on ever-changing psychological models and trends. It is based on revelation from the Living God, “with whom there is no variation or shadow of change” (James 1:17).
Still, the church needs to be ready with an answer before the watching world. How should we use the label of “addiction” when it comes to pornography—or should we use it at all? The need to address this question has never been greater because porn use is at an all-time high.
- One in eight searches online is for erotic content.
- More than a third of teenage boys say they’ve seen porn “more times than I can count.”
- More than two thirds of college age men and a fifth of college age women go online for sexual purposes every week.
If the church wishes to have dialogue with a pornified world, then the terms we use to talk about porn should be clear and honest.
Related: Who is Watching Porn in Church and What Can We Do About it?
Addiction vs. Compulsion vs. Dependence
It might be easy to blame the church for playing fast and loose with its terminology, but part of the reason for the ambiguity around the subject of addiction is that this has been a nebulous concept among psychiatrists and the rest of the medical community for several decades.
We can thank William Shakespeare for introducing the word “addiction” to the English language, but since its inception it has had a turbulent 400-year history.
In the field of addiction medicine, there has been a long-standing debate about the nature of compulsion vs. addiction. This debate is puzzling because “compulsion” is part of the definition of addiction (according to ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine), yet there is no consistent usage of the terms across the board. We regularly speak of compulsive gambling and compulsive shopping, but not “compulsive drug use” or “compulsive drinking.” Any attempts to untangle the language issues or to develop a common framework have failed.
Similarly, there is considerable debate about the labels of addiction vs. dependence. When the revised third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) was being edited, some committee members favored the label “addiction” when it came to drugs and alcohol because it more accurately portrayed a compulsive habit as distinguished from “physical” dependence (which can occur in anyone who takes medications that affect the central nervous system). Those who favored “dependence” felt it was less pejorative; it was a more neutral term that would not stigmatize substance abusers as having a disorder. In end the room was split, and the word “dependence” won over “addiction” by a single vote.
Sex Enters into Addiction Medicine
Sigmund Freud is famous for saying, “Masturbation is the one great habit that is a ‘primary addiction,’ and that the other addictions, for alcohol, morphine, tobacco, etc. only enter into life as a substitute and replacement for it.” Under Freud’s influence, in 1969 Sandor Rado believed drug addicts were accessing pleasure centers of the brain that were ultimately sexual in nature, using phrases like “pharmacotoxic orgasm” to get his point across. Indeed, it was some of these early pioneers of addiction medicine that believed all compulsions had a sexual root.
Many decades later, the pendulum has swung the other way.
Under the general diagnosis “Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified,” the DSM-III-R added the concept of “sexual addiction” to its language for the first time. But only seven years later the DSM-IV (1994) removed the term due to “insufficient research.” In 2009 the term “hypersexual disorder” was proposed for the DSM-V, but this was ultimately rejected.
Much of the debate is centered around both the emotional force and clinical precision of words. Some sexologists, such as Eli Coleman in the late 1980s, prefer terms like “sexual compulsion” or “abusive behavior patterns”—seeing it as a variation of obsessive-compulsive disorder. For these researchers, “addiction” betrays a sort of seriousness that isn’t warranted. Patients can recover from compulsions, but one is “always recovering” from an addiction.
Still, the DSM-IV not only killed the language of “sexual addiction,” it cautioned against calling sexual behaviors “compulsive” as well because sex is inherently pleasurable—unlike OCD patients who derive no pleasure from their obsessions. Other medical professionals objected to this reasoning, believing the OCD definition should be expanded to include a spectrum of behaviors, including “sexual impulsions.”
When the American Medical Association was on the verge of declaring “addiction medicine” a recognized specialty, delegates asked David Smith, president of ASAM, “Is sexual addiction part of the field of addiction medicine?” He knew the medical community feared a slippery slope: would all perceived antisocial behaviors be placed in an addiction treatment context? Smith answered no, sex addiction is not part of addiction medicine. Later Smith commented that his response was as much political as it was clinical.
Why the ambivalence? On one hand, there is a fear in the field of sexual health that any conversation about sex addiction is just a playing into the hands of sex-negative self-help groups. The field of sexology generally focuses on empowering people sexually, not helping people curb their desires. “The unconditional acceptance of sexual desire was the starting point for sex therapy,” writes Dr. Patrick Carnes.
For others, there is the fear that the term “addiction” turns responsible agents into victims, and this is especially true in the criminal justice system. For 80 years, 12-Step communities have been founded on the idea of moral responsibility for one’s actions the need for personal accountability, yet when “sex addiction” is added to the mix there is a fear that this removes all responsibility.
In the face of such ambiguities, it is not difficult to see why the church—and the general public, for that matter—feel free to define the terms in way that make the most sense to them. The medical community certainly isn’t making sense of it for us.
Does Religion Make Us Addicts?
Despite the lack of diagnostic support, psychologists have attempted to explain and define what sex and porn addiction is. Many would agree that sex addiction is “the inability to regulate sexual behavior despite negative consequences.”
Under this definition, because negative consequences differ from person to person, the presence of addiction will vary from person to person. Take the devoted Christian who believes that viewing pornography is sinful, an offense to God, and a betrayal of his conscience. On the other hand, take a secularist who thinks nothing is wrong with watching porn, finds it liberating and enjoyable, and has no social context where his behavior is frowned upon. Suppose these individuals both viewed porn regularly—even every day. Suppose both found themselves compelled to watch it and both indulged whenever they had a chance. Under this definition of addiction, even if both are truly addicted, we could rightly say the Christian is addicted in a way the secularist is not: only the Christian is moving against the grain of perceived negative consequences and indulging in the behavior anyway.
In light of this it makes sense why more Christians would be likely to identify as addicts—they have more perceivable negative consequences to tangle with.
Neurology Enters the Discussion
Still, the inability to regulate behavior despite negative consequences isn’t the only trademark of addictive behavior. Ever since the mid-1970s, new understandings of the chemistry of the brain have opened up new language and new sets of data to talk about addictions.
In 1986, Harvey Milkman and Stan Sunderwirth described three primary neuropathways for the addictions:
- The Arousal Neuropathway – High excitement and intense emotions such as fear and extreme pleasure
- The Satiation Neuropathway – Relaxing or soothing behavior; analgesic, self-medicating, or numbing behavior; anxiety-reducing behavior
- The Fantasy Neuropathway – Escaping into unreality or denial of reality
Milkman and Sunderwirth went further to theorize that sex is perhaps the most powerful addiction because it transcends each of these primary pathways, offering arousal, satiation, and fantasy.
Neurology also begins to address the seemingly uncontrollable cravings of the addict. The more one masturbates to porn, the more dopamine is released in the brain. Eventually dopamine receptors and signals fatigue, leaving the viewer wanting more but unable to reach a level of satisfaction. This desensitization in turn impacts the prefrontal cortex. As dopamine receptors decline in the brain, so do the amount of neural cells in these prefrontal lobes. The decrease of blood flow to the prefrontal lobes causes what is called hypofrontality, which means the “executive control” center of the brain is weakened. As impulses, urges, and emotions surge from the mid-brain, the prefrontal region is too weak to regulate them, thus the addict feels his or her urges as compelling “needs” that must be satisfied.
The field of neurology has completely reshaped a modern definition of addiction given by the ASAM as “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory, and related circuitry.” No longer is addiction merely measured by one’s subjective experiences. It is now something that can be mapped by brain scanners and shown in colorful MRI images.
Hard Questions About Addiction and Sin
When interfacing with the world, with church members, and with the medical community, should the church continue adopting the term “porn addiction,” and if so, when?
Christian counselor Brad Hambrick is right when he says that in dealing with subjects like this, it is better to start with a list of questions than a list of answers. The better our questions are, the more humbly we can approach these areas of uncertainty.
- Is “porn addiction”—or whatever we call it—a flaw in character or chemistry? Is this even the best way to frame the question? What do we lose when we fall into the trap of either-or thinking?
- Can we have a “weak” brain—easily given over to addictive tendencies—and yet have a “strong” soul—with a deep and genuine love for God? If we say “yes” to this question in areas like intelligence (i.e. having a low I.Q. but having strong faith), why would we say “no” about the matter of addiction?
- When do labels serve us well? When do labels serve us poorly?
- What other terms might be helpful for describing the phenomenon? Should we opt for terms born in the medical community (dependence, compulsion, etc.), or should we opt for more biblically rooted terms (slavery, transgression, etc.), or should we opt for both?
- How do we understand the tension between the present and future realities of the kingdom of God when it comes to our mental health? How much can we expect to remedy the effects of the Fall before Christ returns?
- Does the “addict” label help someone struggling with pornography to take responsibility and find help? Or does it become a core identity that holds them back from progress?
4 Positions: How Should the Church Speak of “Porn Addiction”?
Among those who discuss this issue in the church, there are (at least) four identifiable camps. You can, of course, find overlaps, but these tend to be the major positions. I’ve given them nicknames: (1) the Redeemers, (2) the Clinicians, (3) the Prophets, and (4) the Contextualists.
1. The Redeemers: Addiction to Self Is the Root of All Sin
There are some in the church who, regardless of the nuances in the diagnostic literature, think the term “addiction” should be usurped or “redeemed” by the church at large as something to describe all habitual sin. As these people see it, standard clinical stipulations of addiction are unhelpful, relegating “addicts” to those at the far end of the spectrum, when the word should apply to anyone who fails to stop sinful behavior—which is everyone.
By redeeming and reimagining the term “addiction,” churches can level the playing field among their members, breaking down the us-them mentality. When church members are taught that “addiction to self” is the root of all sin, then porn addicts, alcoholics, and drug addicts are not a stigmatized few—they are no longer a lonely group of perverts and lost causes. Rather they can be easily embraced by the body of Christ.
You may ask, “Why redeem the term ‘addiction’ from the culture and from medicine?” Why not, the Redeemers ask. It gives people a vivid picture of the seriousness of sin: something enslaving, habitual, and requiring the help of a Power greater than oneself.
2. The Clinicians: All Sin Is Serious, but Addiction Is Rare
There are others in the church who take their cues about addiction straight from the diagnostic literature and the medical community, and therefore believe phrases like “porn addiction” are overused in the church today.
For the Clinicians, addiction is defined narrowly by key indicators, when several or all of these factors are present:
- Tolerance: A markedly diminished sexual satisfaction over time when looking at porn
- Withdrawal: Showing symptoms of irritability, violent dreams, mania, insomnia, violent mood swings, paranoia, headaches, anxiety, and depression when going without porn
- Progression: Needing larger amounts of porn over a longer period of time to get the same high
- Unsuccessful quitting: No ability to cut down or control the use of porn
- Increased time: More and more time and effort is spent seeking out porn and recovering from its effects
- Sacrifice: Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up in order to use porn
- Stubbornness: Despite knowing the negative physical or psychological effects, porn use continues
The Clinicians see all porn use as sinful, and therefore serious, but not necessarily manifesting as an addiction. There are a variety of other psychological characteristics they might employ to describe one’s relationship to porn: compulsive, impulsive, abusive, self-medicating—all of which are miserable and serious problems—but are nonetheless not addiction.
The Clinicians see the “addict” label as harmful for those to whom it does not really apply because it comes with a long history of medical and therapeutic baggage, insinuating the addict has no control over his or her actions and requires specialized help. Clinicians don’t want to see Christians pathologize themselves needlessly and would like to see addiction language used minimally.
3. The Prophets: “Addiction” Is Confusing, Stick to Bible Terms
Some in the church want to see Christians get back to biblical categories for describing sin, no longer depending on modern psychiatric terms. Not only is there no universally recognized clinical definition of “addiction,” they argue, the term has a broad and ambiguous use in the culture. Calling something an “addiction” is confusing at best and deceptive at worst.
The Prophets rely on the Scriptures for their categories and nomenclature. It isn’t “addiction,” it is slavery to sin. Porn users don’t need to “recover,” they need to repent and be restored in by spiritual leaders. It isn’t “dependency,” it is idolatry. It isn’t “psychiatric help,” it’s discipleship and biblical counsel.
Don’t confuse Prophets with moralists. Prophets are not the just-stop-it crowd. They are not the suck-it-up crowd. They intimately understand there are a variety of heart attitudes, family histories, and environmental concerns that go into our porn obsessions. They know the church must give good counsel, restoration, love, and admonishment. But they also think biblical categories and terms are one of the primary means God uses renew the mind. Modern psychiatric terms, at best, only serve to distract us from what is really going on: sin, hardness of heart, and a dire need to surrender to God.
Even if one’s sin has led to a “medical” condition, such as a chronic disease of brain circuitry, Prophets are skeptical that recovery programs and communities offer any novel, medical solutions. In the end, those enslaved to porn must turn to God’s means of grace to find freedom.
4. The Contextualists: “Addiction” Is Helpful for Some But Not for Others
The term “addiction” has a broad use in the culture, not just in the medical community. For some the term simply means enjoying something greatly and spending a lot of time engaging in it (“I’m addicted to reading”). For others, the term invokes a image of a dimly lit church basement where men and women 20-years sober show up for an AA meeting and still introduce themselves as alcoholics.
Like it or not, addiction means different things to different people. The Contextualists say we need to recognize this, using the term when it is helpful and refraining from use when it is harmful. For some, calling the problem an “addiction” is a relief because it finally gives them a label that makes sense of the madness of their condition; they can finally move on and make progress. For others, it trivializes the problem as something medical and therefore excusable. For others, it imprisons them in hopelessness, for they believe that once you’re an addict, you’re always an addict.
Don’t confuse Contextualists for relativists. Viewing porn is sinful no matter how your slice it or what you call it. But Contextualists understand that words have power, and terms like “addiction” and “addict” can sometimes come with great potential or unexpected baggage. Since the medical community does not have a monopoly on these terms—as is evidenced by the colloquial use of “addiction”—the church has every right to appropriate the terms how it likes. But this, of course, must be done with great care and precision, because words have meaning.
Use “addiction” when the label will help, but refrain when it will harm.
A Call to Stand Together: Do Not Outsource Moral Authority
Like it or not, the term “porn addiction” has officially caught on in the church, but it is still taking shape. How it takes shape will depend on further dialogue and discussion.
Regardless of what camp we stand in, when churches use vague terms like “pornography addiction,” it is critical that we define our terms and aim towards charity to those who don’t see eye-to-eye with our definitions.
It is also critical, when employing patently psychological terms that we never “outsource” moral authority to the social sciences. In a study of the popular evangelical magazine Christianity Today from 1956 to 2010, Jeremy Thomas found that while outward opposition to pornography has remained steady and robust over the last 50 years, during this same time, evangelicals’ anti-pornography declarations have become increasingly secular. More than half a century ago, pornography was judged by the moral authority of Scripture. Today, more secular forms of moral authority are used, such as psychological health or humanistic conceptions of individual rights. This, Thomas says, is evidence that the church is outsourcing its moral authority.
The church must remain clear that pornography is not essentially wrong because it is addictive, but because of its titillating and deceptive message: it rips sexuality from its relational context and presents human beings not as creatures made in God’s image, but as sexual commodities, something to be bought and sold.
Pornography’s message is antithetical to the gospel of Christ which says: “This is my body, which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). Pornography says: “This is your body taken by me.”
Hi Luke,
Nice try on your definition of porn but it strikes me as being much too nebulous and undefined and would only further serve to inflame the hoardes of Christian ministries, pastors and bible teachers that rant on and on about “pornography addiction” but rarely if ever define what they are even referring to. Would you agree with me that you can’t avoid what you can’t define? Frankly, though I disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion on many issues, I think that their definition of pornography is better thought out and more rational than anything I’ve ever read. You should re-read it.
You asked: “Do you believe that the label of porn addiction (or even sex addiction) universally makes believers focus on themselves, or is that just true of the individuals you personally know?”
If a born-again believer is the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus and is always clean and close to God, would it be accurate to describe their essential identity as “addict”? If you believe that you are defined by your bad behavior instead of who you really are in Christ, then what are you going to do more: bad behavior or good behavior?
The author and bible teacher Joseph Prince is correct: If you believe right about yourself, then you’ll act right. If you believe wrong about yourself, then you’ll act wrong. Good fruit (behavior) is the “fruit” of salvation, not the “root” of salvation.
The answer to your question is yes, it affects all believers (not just the ones I know):
When believers in Christ Jesus focus on their sins or sin consciousness, it detracts away from the fact that God performed radical soul surgery on their hearts through the sacrifice of Jesus’ Blood. All of sins were perfectly judged on the Cross, past, present and future. The power of the Law and condemnation incites sin but the good news is that the Law and our flesh was nailed to the Cross with Jesus so we have nothing to feel condemned for any longer. The Cross and the Resurrection changed everything.
Hi Ed,
I’m not sure how that definition would “inflame” such people, but I’m open to you explaining why.
Which Supreme Court definition are you referring to? There have been several.
I completely agree that the identity of “addict” is not befitting of a Christian. I wrote a whole article about not having a “struggle-based identity,” so I find nothing wrong with what you’re saying here. I would only distinguish between a description of one’s transgression and condition (“addiction”) and one’s identity (“addict”). You might believe one entails the other, but that is probably going to be based on one’s personal understanding of what addiction actually is (which is, again, the question this article is raising).
I totally agree with your sentiments about believers not focusing on their sins, but why does that forbid us from labeling them? The Bible clearly has many descriptive labels to various vices. If I said, I am “caught in transgression” (Gal. 6) or I “lust” (Matt. 5), does this mean I’m focusing on my sin, or am I merely confessing what my sin is?
Great quote from Piper! Thanks for posting it. I agree sadly and wholeheartedly. I see the effects of some hijacked terms that have become institutionalized in our culture and even in our churches. I am dealing with these effects in personal ministry while you are dealing with them in a more broad, public forum. Therefore our approach maybe a bit different at least in terms of emphasis. But iron sharpens iron and I appreciate the exchange brother.
I will be glad to reply to your earlier article when I get the chance. Writing helps me condense and defend ideas that I am developing through prayer, reading, and experience. This is a second career for me, after 40 years in the business world. I appreciate this kind of forum because a sentence or two might really help someone struggling. I will soon be going into a doctorate program while counseling. So, this also helps sharpen concepts for a doctoral project.
May God bless you, your family, your work, Covenant Eyes, and your readers. Keep up the great work,
In Christ our Hope,
Brian
Thanks, Brian. I wish you all the best with your studies!
Your point is well taken Luke, and I think we have come to the essence of our somewhat semantic but important distinction. Dr. Welch’s book is excellent. I have gifted it in certain cases. The sections you quote are underlined in my copy. However, the next phrase from Ed on p. 61 makes my point clearly. After he says, “it affects our entire being, it is painful, it leads to death, and it is absolutely tragic.” He goes on to say, “Yet, there are also ways that sin is not like a disease. It is something we do rather than catch, we confess it rather than treat it, the disease is in our hearts rather than our bodies, and only the forgiveness and cleansing found in the blood of the Great Physician is sufficient to bring thorough healing.”
The Bible uses sickness and illness as metaphors or illustrations for sin. There is no blood test or biopsy – no organic pathology for sin. Sin is against God. It starts from idolatry of the heart. A disease like HIV/AIDS may be the result of sin, but it does not define the sin itself.
Since you mentioned Ed’s book on addictions, I will mention Dr. William Playfair’s book called, “The Useful Lie”. Playfair is a Christian medical doctor who gives an insider’s view of the “recovery industry” and twelve step programs – lots of real statistics and quotes. It’s an expose’ of a multi-billion dollar fraud upon the public including the church particularly by using the disease model to avoid the concepts of sin and guilt. You may not agree with everything, but Satan’s inroads into our culture’s conscience become quite clear. And his method is not new – first the doubt, then the lie. “Has God said”, questioning God’s Word. Then the big one, “You shall not surely die.”
The reason I don’t use the word disease much is because the world has kidnapped a metaphor and made it the thing itself, which can and does lead people astray. That is my job as a biblical counselor to guide people away from deception, to Christ using the lighted paths of the Word.
If there is one thing I would say to your dear readers Luke, it is this. Friends, this is deadly serious business. The further down the wrong path you are, the harder it is to claw your way back – but in Christ you can and must. There is genuine Hope in Him. He knows our frame. He has been tempted as we are, and He has shed His blood on the cross, that we might be completely washed and cleansed from all our defilement. Search the scriptures, use Covenant Eyes, get additional help if you need to. It is a matter of eternal life and death. God calls us in the gospel to life in Christ. Brian
Thanks for your reply, Brian. I agree with you (and Welch) and there are many ways in which sin is not like a disease. I would only choose to use it as a metaphor if I thought it would be helpful. I’m always in favor of redeeming terms hijacked by the world, but this, of course, would be a long and difficult process in today’s culture. I only quoted Welch to help me arrive at the same balance he did: don’t be afraid to use Scriptural language of disease to talk about sin, but be prepared to tangle with the world’s definitions and draw contrasts where needed.
In light of this discussion, I’d love to get your thoughts on my recent article about neuroscience and pornography, specifically in a Christian context. I’d love to get your feedback, since you seem to have a good grasp on some of the intricacies.
I agree wholeheartedly this is a serious matter. I think John Piper’s words are noteworthy:
Great questions Luke. I hope this exchange will be helpful to some of your readers. First, to address your comment: I agree there is a parallel between neurology and archeology. In fact this helps illustrate the point I am driving at. The job of either of these professionals is to report facts based on that which is observable and repeatable. However, all too often the results of such research get lumped in with the prevailing view at the university or institutional level. Some things improve and change, but rarely outside of the mainstream views of this world. I am not saying there is nothing helpful in their science. I am saying that the scripture is clear that we are to be biblically discerning and not overwhelmed with their degrees and knowledge. We can be humble, respectful, inquisitive, and skeptical at the same time.
We know from scripture that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Rom 1:18f. – and that God is then active in their self deception and incorrect conclusions. We also know from 2 Pet 3:4,5 that “science” will employ the concept of uniformitarianism to “prove” their theories regarding origins and the human condition. To simplify it – God’s Word is Truth and changeless. Man’s theories are ever changing and quite possibly deceptive. Therefore, it is best to say what God says, and apply the appropriate portions of His Word to each of our problems and lives. To get to your specifics:
1. Luke: Do neurologists and neuropsychologists (Christian or otherwise) claim that hypofrontality is a cause of addiction or just a description of what addiction entails?
Brian: Fair question. I don’t know. I suspect that there is a range of applications on this point. However, as a general observation, the “recovery industry” as a multi-billion dollar enterprise uses these types of definitions to draw people in and keep them in a closed circuit system that offers “coping skills” and temporal help. Only the gospel of Christ offers the Way to eternal life. We work lovingly and patiently with the counselee along a difficult, but clearly defined path to solve immediate problems with long term results. It is a whole person approach body and soul through the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit. In a sense, it is not important or relevant what a person’s label is from some other form of therapy. I can offer real Hope regardless of changing theories and labels. How did gospel counseling work before modern psychology and medicine? By God’s grace in conjunction with the proper application of the Word and the work of the Spirit.
2. Luke: I agree that some use the concept of addiction as an excuse to sin. Is this because their particular definition of addiction is suspect, or do you think that any definition of addiction will tend to lead people that direction?
Brian: Again, a great question – I think the answer varies with how it is applied. Some people come to biblical counselors as a last resort. They have tried everything else. In some cases they come with labels that they cling to and use as a cloak for sin. I must be somewhat familiar with the labels in order to help, but I try to patiently get to the heart issues and redirect to the biblical language. As you know, the scripture never uses the concept of alcoholic, but speaks of a drunkard. There is no perfect or foolproof method because we are dealing with sin in ourselves and others. Some will turn away in anger. Others will embrace the Word, do the homework, and begin to put the specifics of scripture to practical use in their lives. Radical, accountable change like Covenant Eyes is often necessary. And there is often genuine joy, hope, heart change, and healing in individuals and families – praise God alone.
3. Luke: Is part of your concern about the ASAM’s definition the inclusion of the word “disease”?
Brian: Yes, of course, because I think the disease model should be reserved for actual organic problems like cancer and diabetes – even though those conditions may be contributed to by behavior (diet). The human heart is deceitful above all things (Jer 17:9.) To add of multitude of DSM board consensus labels that are behavior based, and not organic just feeds the propensity to sin and the proclivity to deal with guilt by dismissing it. Some are necessary like Autism Spectrum. Some are ridiculous like “oppositional defiance disorder.” It seems every sin has a disorder label now.
I believe there is a legitimate place for psychology, but not when it crosses the line into theology, which it easily and often does. However, I also believe that God has given us sufficient revelation in the Word to develop a theology and methodology of counseling that brings glory to God and genuine, temporal and eternal help to a sinner – even one “addicted” to porn. 1Cor 6:9 “Such were some of you.”
Let me say in closing that I greatly appreciate your informed and inclusive approach. I believe your work helps many of your readers, including me. Our goals at Covenant Eyes and in personal counseling are the same – to help people where they are, by pointing them to Christ, who alone can save us…
In Christ our Hope,
Brian
Thanks for your thoughts, Brian.
One thought comes to mind. Biblcal counselor Ed Welch points out that the Bible itself uses the disease metaphor when talking about sin. Citing passages like Isaiah 1:5-7 and 53:6, he states that Scripture emphasizes that sin has many things in common with a disease. Like a disease, sin affects our entire being, it is painful, it leads to death, and it is absolutely tragic (Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave, 61). However, the Bible also never loses sight of moral responsibility. Alcoholism and porn addiction are a lot like diseases: they feel as if we have been taken over by a virus, making us spiral out of control—but it is a voluntary slavery. Dr. Welch calls this the dual nature of sin: “This enlarged perspective indicates that in sin, we are both hopelessly out of control and shrewdly calculating; victimized yet responsible. All sin is simultaneously pitiable slavery and overt rebelliousness or selfishness. This is a paradox, to be sure, but one that is the very essence of all sinful habits” (34).
For this reason, I have no problem likening sin to disease as long as it is done the way the Bible does it. Disease is a good metaphor for sin, but it is not the only metaphor.
Hi Luke,
It’s time to jettison the whole term “porn addiction” (and “sexual addiction” for that matter). There is no universally accepted definition for these terms and it causes born-again believers to become obsessed with themselves instead of fixated on the loveliness and awesomeness of Christ (remember, we’re new creations in Christ Jesus).
Take for instance the book, Every Man’s Battle, which posits that every man, Christian or otherwise is at least “fractionally addicted” to porn. Fractionally addicted? — what in tarnation are they talking about? Are we going to use the “addiction” word with “porn” when we in Evangelical Christianity can’t even settle on what the definition of porn actually is, let alone porn addiction.
I want you to go ahead and define specifically what porn is and then ask if your filtering software “knows it” when it detects it.
What you’ll find is that our Christian communities have defined “porn” so broadly and has conflated so many different types of imagery and mediums as being “pornographic”, that you would have extreme difficulty getting ten Christian laymen to agree, let alone ten Christian therapists.
Certainly the definition of porn is important if one is to define porn addiction. I completely agree with you. The definition of porn is pretty nebulous, but one of the best one’s I’ve read is: “Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately.” That said, Covenant Eyes has an rating system that deals with a wide variety of materials, not just pornography.
Do you believe that the label of porn addiction (or even sex addiction) universally makes believers focus on themselves, or is that just true of the individuals you personally know?
How do we classify a book like Every Man’s Battle? Good question. In one sense we may say they land in The Redeemers camp, but we should probably create a fifth camp and call it “The Muddlers.” There are a whole lot of Christians who just use the term “porn addiction” inconsistently and don’t think much about the implications behind the term. I can’t say that is true about Every Man’s Battle, since its been more than 10 years since I read the book. Still, the notion of being “fractionally addicted” to something stretches the definition quite a bit.
When a person already addicted to porn online, this leading to depression and can be one of the side effects of porn addiction. The feeling of powerlessness and feeling like you will never get it back. You feel as if you are losing a part of yourself. It’s painful, and disempowering, and scary. I been a lot having this kind of addiction, then I seek help here in greatnessahead.com and the program they gave me truly help me to quit porn addiction for good.
Thank you Luke for this well written article. Your underlying love and concern for your readers comes through in the depth of your research and in your faithfulness to the Word in plainly identifying sin and its remedy. It is a sad commentary on our culture and many of our churches, that we are drifting further and further from the pillars of biblical truth. “Thy Word is Truth.”
My main comment is regarding the field of neurology which, as you say, has reshaped the ASAM definition of addiction due to work with brain scanners and color MRIs. They now conclude that, in this discussion, porn addiction is “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory, and related circuitry.” Their are many assumptions and presuppositions involved in both the use of the technology and the conclusions, none of which address the issue of causation. You alluded to this in your response to Rob above in that sin can and does make us sick. You mentioned Rom 6:23 and 1 Cor 6:19 which specifically mentions sexual sin. In God’s created order since the fall, sin has a profound effect in us, soul and body. Ps 38:3-5 is another clear example, “no health in my bones because of my sin.” The point is that science can have some input on the “what,” but never on the “why.” So even their definitions are suspect since many manipulate the application of them – e. g. using the concept of addiction as a valid excuse for sin, or assuming that hypofrontality is the cause of the addiction(sin) rather than the result. We must measure everything against the infallible and sufficient Word. My thesis is that in a very high percentage of cases, the abnormality is the result of sin. However, there is always the possibility or organic/genetic birth defects. Even so, God knows our frame and calls us to obedience. When we sin, praise God, we have an advocate with the Father.
To respond to your four “camps” breakdown. I do see some overlap in each, but I am definitely a Biblicalist in your vernacular. In fact, I am a biblical counselor and always try to listen carefully, get to the heart issues, and point people to Christ through the process of dehabituation (put off) and rehabituation (put on). Covenant Eyes and your work are sometimes important factors in that process. Thanks again brother. In Christ our Hope, Brian
Thanks for your thoughts, Brian.
To speak some to your comments about neurology, I see Christian neurologists much the same way I would see a Christian archaeologist: both are engaging in an exploration of the material world, and (hopefully) doing so based on Christian assumptions and presuppositions.
Here are my questions for you:
1. Do neurologists and neuropsychologists (Christian or otherwise) claim that hypofrontality is a cause of addiction or just a description of what addiction entails?
2. I agree that some use the concept of addiction as an excuse to sin. Is this because their particular definition of addiction is suspect, or do you think that any definition of addiction will tend to lead people that direction?
3. Is part of your concern about the ASAM’s definition the inclusion of the word “disease”?
Thanks for your thoughts!
Hey Luke,
Thanks for your article ; I feel a kinship and a further empowerment from all four camps you discribed !
I appreciate your call and passion to help all people . Your work has helped me . Thank you
Thanks, Monte!
Thanks for this. Something else I came across recently which I think is helpful in the discussion – from Desiring God ministries – http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/hijacking-back-your-brain-from-porn.
Blessings…
Thanks, David!
Good question! In re-reading your four camps, I think I’m in the Redeemers group. You’re so right, dualism tempts us to reduce the issue to either just a spiritual problem (hence those who want to cast out the demon of lust and reclaim the territory, and I am sure there are situations where that is entirely the thing to do), or just an emotional / physical / or even a self-control issue on the other hand (which is also often a part of it). An integrative approach factors all of these in and sees us in a wholistic way that is rooted ultimately in our redemption through Jesus. And a healthy and ultimately effective path of sobriety, growth and wholeness takes it all into account.
Great article, Luke, and well-researched! You’ve raised a really important issue but also kept the main thing the main thing. Years ago, it was important for me to admit to myself (and more significantly, to others) that I had a ‘sexual addiction’. Only those who have experienced it know it’s true power, regardless of what we call it. I also knew it to be sin as well, and that it was slowly destroying me, which is what sin does. At the same time, the secular world and lately the field of neuroscience has made some significant discoveries that are relevant and helpful to the Christian in his or her struggles. I think we look on with a sense of bemusement on one hand and exasperation on the other when we see how the secular world seems to dance around the issue in so many ways. Addiction? Definitely. SIn? Yes. Brain imbalance? For sure. Take all of these together and find healing ultimately in Christ, who gave Himself for us in our addiction / sin / brain imbalance.
Thanks again, my friend, for getting us to think more deeply on these issues.
Thanks, Rob. I believe it is important to not get trapped in either-or thinking: is it a sin problem or a medical problem? The reality is that we should not be surprised that sin can make us sick. When speaking of “all kinds of lusts,” Paul said the law of sin “dwells in my members” (Romans 8:23), i.e. the physical members of his body. Elsewhere he says “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18), and I thoroughly believe that modern sexual compulsions are evidence of this.
Dualistic thinking can plague the church in many ways. When it comes to sin, it is popular to think that any problem below the neck is a physical problem and anything above the neck is a spiritual problem. In reality, sin impacts the whole person.
What do you think about my four “camps” of thought? Which of these four do you fit into (if any)?
This was one of THE best articles i have read on the issue. Wow. Wow. Wow.
So distinct and well researched and addresses positives and negatives for all 4 camps. Not even really negatives but just ways to help ANY and every one handle how to place responsibility,blame, compassion and empathy…very very good. I would fall into the 3rd camp. Biblicists…ive been blessed to be in some great churches since my husband came out of insane pornography and adulterys…roughly 3 years ago. I am sad to say he does not seem humble or repentant and has continued to act out and I feel forced to finally say that we need to divorce. :( still praying for him and looking for wisdom. His name is jay. Pray for him. We have 4 kids. :(
Hey Shaylee. I’m so glad this article was helpful to you. I see a lot of virtue in each camp, and at the outset of researching for this article, I didn’t expect that. I thought I would firmly fall in one camp and then advocate for it. In the end, I think we really need to approach this subject with enormous charity among Christians—let iron sharpen iron.
So sorry to hear about your husband. What an awful circumstance. Do you have support for yourself as you consider your options?
Luke, My name is Tammie, I am a grateful believer in Jesus Christ and I struggle with Codependency, Trust & Trauma issues. Iam a Ministry Leader in the Celebrate Recovery in my church. Pornography came into my life 4 yrs ago when I discovered my husband’s sexts to 2 different women. The last 4 yrs have been a hard & difficult journey, it still is currently. I just came back from Celebrate Recovery’s leadership conference in Tennessee. Within Celebrate Recovery we meet the users or addicts of the umbrella sex addiction where they are at and WITH Jesus, walking with them on the road to recovery. We also meet the women of the sex industry where they are at WITH Jesus, walking with their healing journey. In Celebrate Recovery I hear many say “God rescued me from Sex Addiction” or God rescued me from the sex Exploration Industry”! Celebrate Recovery is helping to reach the Christians and the Non Christians thru Jesus Christ!
Like me I grew up in a Christian home and at 13 became a Christian myself, yet as I became an adult I followed the world not Christ. Celebrate Recovery is what showed me HOW TO have a relationship with Jesus Christ looked like and how to get one! Celebrate Recovery became my family, because we are all running after God while we allow Him to individually work on our Recovery’s and support each other on our journeys.