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.”
Please emit the exact phrase “or 78% of them” and you will understand what the meaning of my entire comment.
Christians have rejected all the fun things in life, thinking that it is of the devil and now that they have abandoned all the normal entertainment of this world, they are doing worse things than the non-believers and the atheists. You will be amazed that those people live more decent lives than many Christians do because they know how to maintain the balance and vent the pressures of life in an appropriate way, which is non sexual. Basically 78% of Christians are possessed – even at the revival – or their God has no power to remove the demons in them that are making them watch porn or 78% of them or their God always loved the Ishmaelite’s and you know that’s where Islam comes from and 90% of them have never and I mean Never Watched Porn…And they have Internet and Cable Television and they pray and fast like Daniel. They interpreted the scriptures differently and have to defend themselves because everyone is trying to steal their Oil, their Gold and bomb them when they try and defend their selves because they are being robbed. Everyone in the old testament defended themselves in the Bible. Even Christ said sell whatever you have and take up a sword in the new testament of the Bible. He also slipped sway from people who were going to stone him or beat him to death. Basically, I am saying that Christians are bored with life…that’s where this longing comes from.
Again, a lot of generalizations here. Yes, some Christians think this way, but many do not.
You sort of lost me on the possession comment and the 78% stuff.
Here’s the problem:
1. Christians have no life, they don’t watch Movies, TV series, listen to Music.
2. They have no way to vent or release the pressures of life.
3. They fall in love with any ugly non-attractive person they see, without thinking, then after a year or so, they realise that person was actually unattractive all the time…And Gosh…Now they need a 2nd…a 3rd…a 4th wife. Only to discover that they keep looking around at all the new younger woman.
4. Meanwhile, they have no life because they are busy keeping themselves from the “Evils on Television” and the “Evil People or Friends”, which are merely normal people and broadcast content.
5. Christians see everything as the devil, especially the media, however, its the media that has given them intelligence to live this life.
6. Christians have condemned something that could keep them occupied, example, friends and media.
7. They are bored of life because that have pushed all things aside that could keep them entertained and now have fallen in the trap of “internet dating and casual dating and friends with benefits” And FINALLY, into browsing of thousands of Porn sites.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the theme of the post (the nature of addiction and the terminology we use), but you are making a lot of generalizations about a Christian’s experience and what Christians communities are like.
I first want to say that this is a interesting article. I have a number of questions though, first and foremost, how did they define nonbeliever’s for the purpose of the study? Also something else I can help but think of in this article is, what if it is not the porn that has to go, but the religion condemning the sexual acts? Think of it yourself, what would you do if had power and really wanted to control your people? I would start a religion. I religion that ground people down making them guilty for things they can’t help, like sexual desire. While of course simultaneously building them up.
I have read several stories of Christians addicted to porn and what I can say is that the negative effects seem to come from the religion and how it affects the person and those around them rather then the pornography itself.
“Religious” is defined fairly broadly in the study, but it certainly encompassed Christians of many stripes.
The question of whether a religion should be disbelieved should not be decided on the basis of that religion’s psychological effects alone. If, for instance, I was asked why I am not a Muslim, I would not point to negative cultural elements within Muslim nations but I would point to the history of the founding of Islam itself, showing why I believe Muhammad was not a messenger of God.
I know what you’re talking about when it comes to the negative effects of Christian belief, but I would contend that if the Christian gospel is wholeheartedly embraced and understood, it avoids these negative effects. These are the testimonies I hear all the time: “I thought I was unredeemable and that God hated me because I looked at porn. What I found out was that this belief was not in the Bible but was rather my false understanding. Now that I really understand what Christianity teaches, I not only don’t live in shame, but I find a real power to be the kind of man/woman I’ve always wanted to be.”
Hi Luke,
Thanks for all the creative and insightful articles that you write. They are helpful and insightful. I am writing to you from The UK, and I work with guys with porn and masturbation. I think terminology is very important and I would find myself in the redeemers camp. If someone is truly a Christian with the Holy Spirit inside of them, they according to Romans 6:18 they are slaves of righteousness and a fulfillment of Ezekiel 36:26 where it say that we are receivers of a new heart. I tell men when they look at porn or gossip, this is not a true expression of who they are in Christ. They are sons of the Father who sin. Living by faith in our new Identity is the foundation of our freedom. I have a us passport and when I sin, I don’t start saying, oh my gosh, I am such scum, I am no longer a us citizen, I admit that I have sinned and learn to grow by faith and live out who my Father says I am. I never say to anyone you are an addict, I say you are enslaved to a lie and trained yourself to be comforted by porn and masturbation. Identity is the source of our freedom and authority in Christ. Bless you.
Thanks for chiming in on this critical conversation. I think more people in the church need to wrestle with the implications behind their particular view, just as you have.
Luke, your makeshift definition of porn confuses privacy with sexual intimacy. While privacy can greatly enhance sexual intimacy, sexual intimacy and privacy are not the same thing. Look online for any definition of sexual intimacy and you will not see the concept of privacy intrinsically intertwined with it. Furthermore, you as a finite human being cannot separate the act of sex from the “intimacy of partners”. If two partners are being genuinely sexually intimate with each other, then “deliberately displaying it” cannot turn it into an artificial definition of porn. As author Walter Kendrick has pointed out, pornography is not a “thing” but an argument.
The more narrow the definition of porn is the more legalism is brought to the table in its categorization and application. Any topic like porn, which carries so many contrary and conflicting definitions, needs to be described in the broadest terms possible. For instance, to me personally, porn is sexual material or sexualized material that serves no purpose, solves no problems and has nothing useful to contribute to public discourse. Is that definition subjective? — absolutely. But at least, it provides the benefit of a doubt to those who have differing definitions. For example, if we were talking about drug addiction, there are very certain and clear differences between smoking marijuana, smoking hashish, smoking crack cocaine and smoking meth and its varying effects upon the humans body. But trying to differentiate and categorize “porn” in the same way, isn’t so easy it? At the drop of a hat, we could have born-again believers locked into a contentious, irreconcilable debate as to whether a given marketing magazine from Victoria Secret or Fredericks of Hollywood was porn or not– even if it was only one single photo that was the course of the contention and the rest of the magazine caused no disagreement.
I partially agree with your clarification that we, as believers, do not not have sinful natures. After all, at conversion the Holy Spirit came in and swept our spirits totally clean. That’s because a Holy Jesus will not live in a dirty house. We are totally clean apart from our behavior. We behave differently because we know that we are totally forgiven and clean — not because we are trying to get forgiven and clean and close to God. The power of sin is not found in our righteous natures — it is in our physical flesh. And when we shed these earth suits, then the last DNA vestiges of Adam’s fall will be totally annihilated (note that I said Adam’s fall, not our own fall). We were born sinners because of Adam’s sin, not our sin. And now, all of our sins, past, present and future are totally cancelled and forgotten and with it, our own consciousness of sin. We do not “fight sin” — we are totally dead to it — and our behavior changes by recognizing that God is not dealing with our sins any longer. We are complete in Him: that’s why it’s called a Finished Work (Jesus said it is finished!).
I am glad to hear that you are seeing that recovery ministries are moving in the direction of defining and claiming our identity in Christ. I visit a lot of Christian support and blog pages and I do not see the focus on identity at all. What I see is this: get your filthy behavior right and then you’ll be acceptable and righteous in God’s sight and in the sight of others. Confess your sins so that God and other believers can forgive you. Change behavior so that you can prove to God and others that you are truly “repentant”. After all, Christ died for you — isn’t that the least you could do?
Some further questions for you Luke:
1. How does God discipline His children? — give me some examples.
2. Do born-again believers have sinful hearts?
3. Does God ever diminish or reduce his relationship with His children in any way whatsoever because of wrong behavior that misses the mark?
Your points are well-taken when it comes to definition difficulties. I continually see semantic issues as we discuss these matters more. Each term that is a part of each definition seems to require its own stipulations in order to be taken in the right light, so perhaps a short definition of pornography is not possible. I see the same with the Supreme Court definitions. I guess I feel less deterred by these obstacles. Definitions become clearer in the midst of discussion and dialogue, at least as far our ability to stipulate what we’re talking about.
I think you and I both agree, as far as people intentionally viewing sexually titillating material is concerned, that it is sinful as far as motivations go. If I lust after an image of a woman from a bathing suit catalogue, I am guilty of lust. If I lust after a woman in a hardcore fetish film, I am guilting of lust. I am guilty of lust regardless of the intentions of the maker of the media. I think you and I will also agree that there has never before, in the history of the world, been more media available made by those who intend to provoke lust in the viewer (and, of course, make money doing it).
As far as the definitions of “porn addiction” go, I think one of the big reasons why it doesn’t make it into the diagnostic literature is because of the nebulous definition of porn. “Sexual addiction” or “sex addiction” are probably less problematic for a variety of reasons, and that is why I chose to focus on that concept rather than merely “porn addiction” in the article.
I think we’re on the same page when it comes to the sinful nature concept. I agree 100% with what you said.
I want to get back to the core of what this article is about and your problems with my treatment of the subject. Can you summarize what exactly your take is and how this article fell short of that (briefly)?
To address your questions…
1. I probably can’t be as exhaustive as needed, but a look at Hebrews 12:4-11 gives a picture of the Lord’s discipline as a sign of His love and care. Here, the Lord’s discipline (παιδεία) is not merely about “punishment” but is a broader concept: the whole of His sovereign work in our lives that trains and educates us, cultivating sanctification and character. He disciplines us “that we may share his holiness” (v.10). His discipline is “for our good” (v.10). Nonetheless, discipline is often unpleasant (v.11). Discipline is something that must be “endured” (v.7). Discipline includes “reproof” (v.5), which can include conviction, correction, or exposure of sinful thoughts, motives, or behaviors. In the context of the Hebrews passage, discipline can most certainly include persecution (v.3-4). Elsewhere in the New Testament, discipline can also come via the education of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16). The Hebrews text quotes Proverbs 3, which connects discipline to chastisement (literally, flogging), and in the divine context this can probably relate to all manner of unpleasant circumstances in our lives that bring correction and refine our characters, and all of them motivated by God’s fatherly love for us.
2. Again, the semantics might get in the way on this one, especially when we consider the word “hearts.” If by “heart” you mean “who you really are,” or “your core identity,” then no, the heart is not sinful. If by “heart” you mean “the seat of your emotions, desires, and decisions,” then yes, the heart of a Christian can certainly be engaged in sin. As far as the second meaning is meant, several Scriptures speak to this. We are commanded to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts (1 Peter 3:15), purify our hearts (James 4:8), and guard against having an evil heart (Hebrews 3:12).
3. I’m not sure what you mean by “diminish or reduce his relationship,” and perhaps that is because I’m inclined to say no. The New Testament speaks relationally when it comes to our identity: we are adopted sons. If my son sins against me, he doesn’t become less a son to me (either in my mind or biologically speaking). If my son leaves home and forgets all about me, he doesn’t become my son any less. Certainly, sin can grieve the Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), just as my children’s sins grieve me, but this doesn’t change their status as sons. In fact, the very reason why we can grieve the Spirit is precisely because we are sealed with Him for the day of redemption.
Wow, I really liked this article and the subsequent comments as well. I learned a lot from them. I was attracted to the article because during a confession several months ago my confessor (a priest) used the term sexual addiction and I let him know that I did not really like the term sexual addiction for many of the reasons stated above. I fully admitted the fact that I had sinned and that the sin was habitual and told him so. I believe that this term is so loaded with meaning, and quite often meaning that is subjective, as well as being a pejorative term that it may do more harm than good. His view was that it was necessary to use this label so that we sinners take the sin seriously.
Your comments detailed specifically why I think this label is not a good one for Christians to use. I think of myself as a child of God and a new creation in Christ. That keeps me forward-looking and not focussed on a pathology that existed in my past. And I believe it’s more ontologically correct.
As far as which category do I find myself in? Well, I found myself agreeing with some content in each category. On balance I would say I am most comfortable with what you call Biblicalist viewpoint. You can’t go wrong with Biblical language. The redemption of the term addiction viewpoint I agree with too.
Thanks for a very insightful article
Luke,
Your article is expertly executed. As Brian and other previous commenters have posted – well done and thank you for your time and efforts and passion with this subject and for your patient responses!
I find your handling of this topic very helpful and encouraging. God bless you man.
-Jerred
Thanks, Jerred. Hope it was clarifying and encouraging.
Hi Luke,
You said in your porn definition:
“Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately.”
The reason why a definition like this stirs up the Christian Evangelical bloggers and commenters is that there is no way to define: “removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners”. How can you look at any given picture of actual or simulated sexual acts and know for sure that there is no “intimacy” being displayed? Your definition is entirely subjective and broad subjectivity appeals to legalistic tendencies in believers (myself included).
In terms of Supreme Court definition, this snippet from Miller vs. California provides the best test that I ever read:
“Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
It’s not perfect but it’s avoids the broad brush approach.
Your article about struggle-based identity is not too bad — but I take issue with the notion that as born-again believers we have a “sinful nature”. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that. If we accepted Christ into our hearts then we have a radically new nature. We are righteous and perfect saints who sometimes sin because of focusing on the flesh (which was crucified with Christ).
In terms of focusing on sin vs. our new nature. Honestly Luke, how many so-called “recovery ministries” actually focus on how saved, righteous and forgiven that we are in Jesus? Not any that I’ve ever seen. They focus exclusively on categorizing, cataloguing and confessing various kinds of sin and deviancy. Then when you throw in something like “porn addiction” which has been so poorly defined, you have yet another thing for Christians to self-occupy their minds with. As believers, we are not born for a pre-occupation with sin and sin consciousness. It always creates more of what we are trying to avoid.
Here are my questions for you:
1. If you, as a born-again believer, happen to view hard-core commercial pornography for 20 hours straight, are you still as 100% righteous, perfect and pure as Jesus is?
2. Do born-again believers have to confess their sins in order to be forgiven by God?
Be careful in how you answer these two: it will reveal what and how you actually think about yourself.
The definition I used doesn’t point to whether any actual intimacy is on display, but the fact that sex has been removed from the realm of intimacy at all by being put on display. I could see where the definition might get muddy in people’s minds. Perhaps it should be worded somewhat differently. The Miller vs. California definition brings a little clarity to it, as do other Supreme Court cases, but more recent cases are heading in some disturbing directions.
If it is true that my definition will inflame certain Christians, I take issue with the idea that the Miller vs. California definition won’t do the same. The same ruling further defines obscenity as something “the average person, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a lewd curiosity.” I think if a Christian or a church has certain presuppositions about pornography, nearly any definition could be problematic. Let’s both aim at clearing up our definitions, and while we do that, let’s help Christians get to the root of their presuppositions. (I hope this article is a step in that direction.)
In my other article, don’t believe I said we have a “sinful nature” but that sin is part of our nature. This is clearly taught in Romans 7 and Galatians 5 (unless, of course, you don’t think our physical members constitute part of our “nature”). I completely agree with you that as believers, the new creation has come. “The Spirit is life because of righteousness,” but the body is still dead because of sin (Romans 8:10). I’m not trying to mince words here. I agree with your wording of things 100%. Before Christ, we were fighting a battle we could not win. With Christ, we are fighting a battle we cannot lose because our identity is entirely rooted in Him, not this sinful age. But, I might add, we are still fighting a battle nonetheless. That battle exists because of sin “in our members” (Romans 7:23; Colossians 3:5). Perhaps the semantic issue is the word “nature.”
How many recovery ministries do I know that focus on one’s new nature? Quite a few, depending on what you consider a “recovery ministry.” I’ve spoken to many church and parachurch leaders who run groups where they insist members not call themselves addicts, but rather they insist members identity as “new creations in Christ” who have struggled with the sin of pornography. Around here we get approached by church leaders all the time who are moving in this direction with their recovery ministries.
For instance, one group I know meets weekly and before the end of the meeting, everyone stands are recites Question 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism:
Question: How are you righteous before God?
Answer: Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments,
of never having kept any of them,
and of still being inclined toward all evil,
nevertheless,
without any merit of my own,
out of sheer grace,
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,
as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner,
and as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me.
This and similar confessions are the lifeblood of many of the groups I’ve hear about.
As for your questions…
1. If someone is truly regenerate and they view porn for 20 straight hours, then yes, they are still a regenerate person, still adopted child of God, still co-heir with Christ, still seated at the right hand of God with Christ, still clothed with Christ, and still justified in the eyes of the Father because of Christ. As far as their current experience goes, he or she is also likely grieving the Spirit and may very well incur God’s loving fatherly discipline.
2. Do born-again believers confess sins to be forgiven by God? No. They confess “Jesus is Lord” to be saved, believing in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead. They confess their specific sins to one another and experience the richness of mutual prayer in order to be healed of the various ways in which sin harms us (James 5:16). They converse and encourage one another in ways that help each other see how sin is operating at the heart level (Hebrews 3:13).