Letters

Pastors & Porn

My unscientific research—asking pastors I know—reveals a much higher percentage. One would think it would be harder to confess in person than in a survey, but since part of the porn problem is secrecy and denial of sin, many men will not be honest even if they are assured anonymity. Men also tend to minimize their sins and their frequency. A face-to-face, but loving, encounter may produce greater accuracy.

It is safe to say that even if the article’s statistics are accurate, there is a major problem in the church. Considering the survey also revealed pastors believe that prayer is their first line of defense, the problem is even more pronounced. As the article reveals, it is only through honesty, confession, accountability, and even counseling that men can gain any kind of consistent victory over porn.

As discipleship coordinator at Harvest USA, which ministers to those affected by pornography and homosexuality, I can confirm this. Prayer alone allows men to continue to sin in secret, pray about it, and sin some more. Prayer becomes part of the sin cycle and only makes matters worse due to our deceitful hearts.

As a porn addict from ages 12 to 26 and a youth minister of almost 30 years, I know the struggle of dealing with the daily temptations of “the flesh.” Although as a recovering porn addict I have walked pretty obediently for many years, practicing accountability and strict personal disciplines, the Internet finally got me.

While doing some legitimate research, I chose to click on a link that presented itself before me, knowing it would surely get me into trouble. After several visits to the site and three days of wretched guilt, I confessed my sin to my wife and imported an Internet filter to which only she has the password.

Like your subject “Scott,” I have had many opportunities to minister to other men in this area, and decided years ago to begin getting honest so God could get real in my life and the lives of others. I spoke recently at a men’s retreat and was not surprised when they had dozens of questions about “the struggle.”

I wondered why “Scott” was reentering the ministry before establishing trust with his spouse. Didn’t overactivity exacerbate his problem in the first place? What about Paul’s mandate that Christian leaders must first be above reproach? Can a man whose wife cannot trust him be an example to counsel others?

If a stronghold of sin has existed in a man’s life since childhood, there needs to be a substantial cleansing period before he reenters the ministry (if ever). There is something wrong when spiritual leaders have habitual, unconfessed sin in their lives. This tends to replicate itself within congregations.

Christian men (and women) need to hear the message that the habits they build as singles will dramatically affect their ability to be the spouse God wants them to be. The church must take a strong stance and challenge men to aim high regarding sexual faithfulness.

Openness Debate

Furthermore, to accuse open theism of being “Pelagian” is simply wrong. While Gruenler may think that open theism leads to Pelagianism, simply to label it “really Pelagian,” as he does, is to say that open theists are not Christians because they deny salvation by grace alone. They do not. That is an error and an insult and unworthy of a theologian of Gruenler’s stature.

As I read the interview of Royce Gruenler concerning process theology and the openness of God ideas, I was struck by the poor case he made.

I am not a trained theologian, but I could see several lapses in his logic. For instance, the claim that if God is open to our freedom then he is limited to the speed of light just does not follow. This implies a whole bunch of hidden premises, such as denial of God’s transcendence, which I doubt openness supporters would accept.

His claim that openness theology is Pelagian is just not supportable. The recognition that we need lots of help to follow Christ and live a good life is not contradicted by the belief that we can choose whether to accept that help.

For an additional comment on “God at Risk,” see “Truth at Risk” (by a group of openness theologians) on page 103. —Eds.

Natural Branches

As an older child, I was unknowingly convinced of many of the fallacies that come from manmade dispensational theology. I once told my best friend (who is Jewish) that even though he needs Jesus, God would show a special kind of mercy on him come judgment.

Later I developed a Reformed view and became quickly convinced that the true Israel were those who had faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. I was passionate about passages in 1 Peter and Galatians 3. I even gave sermons at a retirement-home church (which had many dispensationalists) to convince them that neither America nor the physical nation of Israel was God’s nation, and that Jews were not God’s people unless they were believers in Christ as Lord.

But I always had one small problem—Romans 11. It was such a joy to read that the president of Fuller Theological Seminary has a similar struggle.

His words rang true that though only believers in Christ are heaven-bound, we must not only witness to Jews but also be ready to learn from and cooperate with them.

I still enjoy a friendship with that Jewish friend of my younger years. I have learned so much from him and his family. (If you have never experienced the Jewish Passover meal, then you are missing out.)

I have cooperated with him about expressing the obviousness of the existence of God. And I have had many wonderful talks with him about Christ being the realization of so much of the Old Testament.

I pray all of us will follow the example set by Mouw. Let us not support Israel in its horrid mistreatment of Palestinians. Let us not view America as the new chosen nation supporting the original chosen nation when it comes to war and politics. Let us realize that we are part of a worldwide chosen nation of believers, and that the Jews were first part of that nation.

“The Chosen People Puzzle” reminded me of a Jewish friend who invited me to the local Jewish Community Center to hear Rabbi Tovia Singer, founder and director of Outreach Judaism, which arms the Jewish people with Scripture to counter missionaries who attempt to convert them to Christianity. Rabbi Singer is something akin to a Billy Graham for the Jewish world.

His first statement dealt with the resolution passed at the previous annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that targeted Jews for conversion to Christianity.

Rabbi Singer mentioned an SBC evangelist who in 1982 said, “God does not listen to the prayer of the Jew.” This evangelist made the same statement a few years later at a meeting of the annual Southern Baptist Convention and received a standing ovation.

Rabbi Singer then asked us, sadly, “If Southern Baptists really love the Jews, as they say they do, instead of giving the evangelist a standing ovation, why didn’t they fall on their faces in sorrow and tears?” A good question, eh?

Several years ago, a retired minister and I were discussing how our concepts of God have changed as we have aged. “Bill,” he said, “the older I get, the more I long for a God I cannot understand.” Once we think we understand God, he ceases to be God; the wonder and awe are gone.

The Wireless Gospel

For example, he writes, “Did McPherson compromise the faith with theatrical productions. … ?” and “The preachers of the Religious Right [were] in favor of a conservatism virtually indistinguishable from the ideology of the Republican Party” and “evangelicals lacking creedal formulas or strong denominational organizations” tend toward “charismatic preachers, who pander to popular tastes and prejudices.”

Those kinds of comments and illustrations will receive applause from liturgy-loving persons or left-leaning Christians or from peers at liberal academic institutions. But what are the facts?

Leaving aside whether McPherson ever had an “illustrated sermon” on TV (as opposed to in a local church service), is not the thought behind a liturgical service really to create a spiritually moving drama? Surely no one would contend that in the first-century church the apostles wore special colored seasonal robes, rang bells, used incense, or urged members to touch the Holy Water as a point of contact with God.

That is not to make light of such use—just to show that McPherson (perhaps with less style) was following an old and honored church tradition of using drama for presenting the eternal Truth. (As to appropriate style and taste, I saw on TV the “blessing of the animals” at New York’s Episcopal cathedral.)

Internet Opening

As Christians we believe that in eternity we will have ongoing interactive fellowship with the persons of the Godhead. We also believe the persons of the Godhead have fellowship with each other. How can there be fellowship without sharing, revealing or surprise? Humor and pleasure depend on it.

Exploiting Exploitation?

This is a clear abuse of power for which there had been neither recognition nor justice—even after 19 years of intensive attempts in pretrial mediation and negotiation. With that understanding in mind, LeBlanc’s closing paragraph is deeply disturbing.

What, in God’s name, does the ordination of homosexual people have to do with an ordained heterosexual who was found guilty of sexual exploitation—even, in this case, 19 years later?

The news story mentioned an incongruity in the court’s two rulings, which both concerned sexual relations outside of marriage. It did not equate homosexual relationships with sexual exploitation. —Eds.

Contacting CT

E-mail:cteditor@christianitytoday.com

Mail: Letters, CT,
465 Gundersen Drive,
Carol Stream, IL 60188

Fax: 630.260.8428

Advertising:ctiad@christianitytoday.com

Address changes, subscriptions:ctifulfill@christianitytoday.com

Customer service Web site:http://www.christianitytoday.org/myaccount/

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.