I could
A. create a commercial using a ton of scripture, explaining why the Bible says pornography is wrong. Of course, I would have to first convince the audience that the scriptures are authoritative and inerrant word of God, and it needs to be obeyed. But, then I could tell the world how they should stop giving kids porn simply because the bible says so.

Or

B. create a commercial using one of the leading pornstars and producers that most people recognize as a sex symbol to communicate your message. Rather than giving the church answer, use compelling and logical arguments to help parents understand why pornography is more harmful and helpful for their children.

I am not too sure why we think “God did it, the bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” will work with the world around us. This ODM is criticizing xxxchurch.com for not using scripture in this announcement that is being aired on national television. Pornography is literally ripping apart the fabric of most families in America, statistically more so in believing families than nonbelieving families. And for some reason, whenever the church tries to effectively do something about it, we all freak out. And, a six week men’s study on purity is usually not the best medicine. Here is an organization that is trying to stop pornography from affecting children early on in life, and all this website can say is that they need more scripture in their argument.

I recently had a teenager talk to his dad about his occasional struggle with internet pornography. The family was on the most fundamental I have worked with (and that is an understatement). The dad was unable to cope with the news and, rather than talking it through, he grounded his son for six months. When the mom found out, she went into a two-week fit of deep depression over the “moral loss” of her son. The family literally fell apart in a matter of days. When I asked the dad about the situation, he said that he knew it all along and didn’t want to bring it up because it would ruin the family. He just prayed every night that God would help his son. I was amazed.

I think the church need to loose the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy with this one, and use any and all means within the bounds of scripture to rescue our society from this clutch. If our best hope for stopping teenagers from becoming addicted to porn is Ron Jeremy telling parents that he makes his films for consenting adults only, then bring it on. Just don’t criticize the few out there making a difference for not having scripture in a commercial.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 at 10:53 am and is filed under Christian Living, Editor, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

72 Comments(+Add)

1   Simon Johnson    http://www.johnankerberg.org/
January 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am

Nathan – the last time I read my Bible, the church has been given the task of making disciples through the proclamation of Christ Crucified for sinners and sound Biblical teaching. The Apostle Paul didn’t destroy the Idol market in Ephesus by teaming up with the craftsmen who made idols. Instead, Paul stubbornly preached Christ Crucified for sinners and God converted them to Christianity. The only way that we are going to have any impact on the porn industry is to follow Paul’s example. Quite frankly I could care less if non-Christians look at porn. That is not THE problem. That is just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is that non-Christians are unrepentant sinners. So the way I see it, XXXChurch’s partnership with Jon Jeremy isn’t going to do squat to stop Pornography because the solution isn’t cute little videos. The solution is to make people see their sinful condition, repent and trust in Christ. Any other approach is doomed to failure regardless of how good their intentions and efforts may be.

2   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am

Nathan,
So do you agree that pornography is for consenting adults, not kids?

Because that’s what this video is teaching.

And when the kids who remember watching this video get to be the age of consenting adults, they can thank XXX church that the “church” taught them that pornography is okay for consenting adults.

3   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am

amy,

Do you think porno is for kids also?

iggy

4   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am

I agree with you that quote scripture at those who don’t give authority to scripture is pretty silly. And I think it is more silly to attack this video on those merits.

But I will say that the video is a bit odd. XXXChurch is supposed to be against pornography, yet the ad gives credence to the idea that porn is okay as long as it is involving consenting adults. That does seem to go directly against XXXChurch’s mission.

5   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am

I’ve kind of liked some of XXX Church’s stuff before, but this does seem sort of stupid. I’m sure it will be as effective as the Beer companies telling kids not to drink in their commercials.

6   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am

SImon,

in the bible many non Christians promoted the truth… God even partnered with Rahab… God partnered Hosea and Gomer, The Romans nailed Jesus to the Cross for the Jews, Paul used the Roman system…

Now, I am stretching a bit, but I find it amazing that someone is reaching porn stars with Jesus… and though Ron may not be a Christian (yet) I think that the few that have should be a sign that there is something going on and God is doing it.

Now, also, commercials “build”. The first one might be more soft sell and then they might get more aggressive in there “facts”… also, interestingly, Ron Jeremy is promoting xxxchurch.com… a porn star promoting a anti porn site that helps people with their addiction.

Personally I think there is something more going on there… and God seems to be doing it.

iggy

7   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am

Iggy,
Of course I don’t think porno is for kids.

The fact that this video doesn’t contain scripture is in fact secondary to the fact that it contains a lie: Pornography is okay for consenting adults.

This isn’t even a “smart” message from a worldly perspective – for surely adults looking at porn harms families, and thus kids, in many ways.

8   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
January 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am

The reaction of that family (as well as the way many churches deal with this problem) is a result of a portion of the church finding their identity in their own righteousness rather than in Christ. Finding out that Christians struggle with sin shouldn’t ever shake anyone’s foundation, if we really do believe we are justified by Christ.

9   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:49 am

Iggy,

I think it is obvious that Amy does not think that porno is for kids also.

Neil

10   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am

Amy,

I don’t think the video was saying that porn is OK for adults, it said it was made for adults – which is true.

Neil

11   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 11:51 am

I don’t think the video was saying that porn is OK for adults, it said it was made for adults – which is true.

It may not say it explicitly, but it definitely implies that porn is okay as long as it involves consenting adults.

12   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am

Dave,

I would say you inferred that, not that they implied it.

Neil

13   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am

If you follow the links you get to the Pete the Porno Puppet pages – I think that’s where the story of the family is that Tim referenced…

…but there is also a post there about a piece CBN News did on them – it’s worth the watch regardless which “side” you take. It helps put their efforts into a better context.

Neil

14   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am

I would say you inferred that, not that they implied it.

I wish we had a rolleyes smiley. ;-)

What is this? English class?

15   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Nathan,

I understand the tack they’re taking – much like with cigarettes, if you stem the habit in the youth, you will reduce the risk later in life. I also agree that a PSA aimed at the general public is probably not the place to use scripture as your argument (for the reasons you stated).

However, I think an approach more in line with the mission of xxxchurch would have been something like –

C) Create a commercial in which real people (or actors) tell real stories about what pornography has done to their lives or the lives of their families. Specifically, I’m thinking in the vein of the current anti-Meth commercials like these.

16   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I would say you inferred that, not that they implied it.

This is what Jeremy said:

Hey- Pete. Its me, Ron Jeremy. Listen.
I believe that adult films, are consenting adults, having consenting sex, for consenting adults to watch. I stress… ADULTS… NOT… for you.

If you really don’t think that implies that adult films are okay as long as consenting adults are involved, I am not sure what else to say.

Even if you want to say it is me making that inference, then I would say this: It is very, very easy to infer that this video says that porn is okay as long as it involves consenting adults.

17   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Don’t get me wrong. I like a lot of what XXXChurch does. I just think that this video seems to go against what their mission is:

to help people overcome the twin temptations of pornography and onanism and bring them to God.

18   Joe C    http://www.joe4gzus.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I wonder if it would be okay if a non-believing firefighter (”secular job”) warned a kid not to walk in to a burning building. Or told them to stop stealing. I wonder if that could be a ‘good thing’, and ‘used by God’?

Just some perspective. And if you really think about it, it’s not an apples and oranges comparison. Sin is sin. What about the little ones? Should we try to keep them from sin or not?

If I told a man who was a terrible pathological liar, to stop lying, but I wasn’t a Christian, and I was a liar myself, would it be wrong of me to do so? Could that be used of God? It might just be a symptom of him being an unrepentant sinner, but still? Telling someone the dangers of something, is that the wrong thing to do, especially if you can use that as a launching point in to your ministry, as I’m sure XXXchurch is doing (since their name will be on the add and this will direct people to their site/ministry, where they can get the Gospel?)

Whoever is not against us, is for us.

Or…a modern way of saying it…(or not so modern if you know who said it)…

The enemy (not sinning) of my enemy (the devil), is my friend.

Joe

19   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

“Imply” is the act of putting meaning into something… the creator of an act of communication “implies.”

“Infer” is the act of taking meaning from something… the receiver of an act of communication “infers.”

Therefore, if someone watches this and thinks (wrongly of course) that it condones the watching of porn by adults – they are inferring.

Neil

20   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
January 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I think what XXX church is doing is great! Nathan, I thought you brought up some valid points! I use to be a part of a drama team that went around to churches teaching abstinence. We were ask to leave one church because we were told that “Twelve and thirteen year old don’t know what sex is let alone are they doing it!” We had very frank discussions and skits for our audience. It floors me that pastors and church goers are so naive to think that this stuff does not effect kids. Yeah it is sin but we vilify them for having a problem instead of helping them. A friend of mines son just recently got caught looking up porn on the computer. Their solution was for him never to use a computer again and get counseling from the pastor. I think it is a bit extreme to take the computer away. Anyway, I think you brought up a lot of excellent points here!

21   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Yes… I know the grammatical/usage differences differences.

I still think that the video implies that pornography is perfectly okay as long as it involves consenting adults.

By the way… the messenger can imply and the receiver can infer in the same act of communication. Actually, if the messenger implies something, the receiver is required to infer in order to see/understand the implication.

22   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Dave,

Since Phil asked I answered.

You are right on the necessity of implication/inference. But do you really think it was xxx.church’s intention to say porno was acceptable if viewed by adults?

Neil

23   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

I use to be a part of a drama team that went around to churches teaching abstinence.
Erica… in your drama team, did you say something like this:

“Kids… you should stay away from sex. Because sex is supposed to be for consenting adults.”

I really, really don’t want to start a discussion on premarital sex. But I am working under the assumption that your drama team would have been opposed to premarital sex, regardless of the age. In turn, you would not want to say that sex is for consenting adults. You would say that sex is okay for married people, right?

Again… I like a lot of what XXXChurch does. And I like that they are trying to target kids. I have no problem with that. I do have issues with an organization that is adamantly against pornography to have a video that implies (or at minimum leads us to infer) that porn is okay as long as it only involves consenting adults.

24   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

But do you really think it was xxx.church’s intention to say porno was acceptable if viewed by adults?

I have no idea what their intention is. But I do know that the video is pretty clear. It states explicitly that adult films are for consenting adults, by consenting adults. Period. The obvious inference from this is that pornography is okay if it only involves consenting adults.

25   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Dave,

I guess that shows two differences in our perspectives.

1) Since xxx.church exists to help the church escape from pornography, I’m going to assume that they would not do the opposite and promote it’s use.

2) You are right, the video does state, explicitly, that adult films are for consenting adults, by consenting adults. But this is just a statement of fact… not promotion.

Neil

26   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Dave,

Furthermore… even if “The obvious inference from this is that pornography is okay if it only involves consenting adults.” – that came from the pornographer – of course that’s what he would say.

Neil

27   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Well… I guess that is what happens when you have a pornographer doing videos for you.

Again – I do think that XXXChurch is against pornography, and I do not think that they intentionally implied that porn was okay as long as it was with consenting adults. But I do think that is what the video implies. It just seems that the didn’t really think through the implications of what Jeremy is saying in the video.

28   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

This comment thread and the article it comments on makes clear something that should be obvious: its far easier to criticize than to create.

29   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
January 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Dave, Amy and whomever else,
I would agree that the commercial gives a poor representation of truth. Of course pornography is not for consenting adults . However, I don’t think the XXX church believes this either. Maybe Iggy is right and they are having more commercials! I will give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. I think they do a lot of good. The commercial is just a little rough!
Dave, of course, we did not say that. Sex is wrong until you were married. Pornography is never right. I applaud a church willing to do something about a huge problem effecting everyone though.

30   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Amy,

Of course I don’t think porno is for kids.

Then why would you ever ask Nathan…

So do you agree that pornography is for consenting adults, not kids?

This is the sort of thing that makes me not want to read your comments as you seem to think it fine to insinuate others think “such and such” but you get defensive if you are asked the same sort of question. I would not be surprised now if you go round and round about how Nathan supports porn and foul language and then toss Tim in there somehow…

iggy

31   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Neil,
Implied, inferred . . .

“The roller coaster is for kids over 5 feet tall.” Does that mean that the roller coaster was created for kids over 5 feet tall to ride, or simply that kids over 5 feet tall will be allowed to ride the roller coaster? It implies both. Do kids over 5 feet tall lined up for the roller coaster stand there and debate the meaning, as in, “This roller coaster was created for kids over 5 feet tall to ride. Uh, should we stand here and admire this thing that was created for us, or should we just get on it? ”

He says, “Adult films are . . . for consenting adults to watch.” Maybe someone has time can listen to and write down the whole quote.

For kids (and adults who aren’t trying to defend this video) I think they’re most likely to understand this in the same vein as, “Little kids shouldn’t play with matches.” But “It’s alright for adults to use matches, since they know how to do it without getting hurt.”

I asked two of my kids to watch this, and without any kind of prompting asked them what it was teaching. The immediate response: that porn is okay for adults. The kids are older than the target audience for this video, one on the verge of adulthood. That brings up another problem with this video. It’s not only little kids who will see this video, but those on the verge of adulthood. What is it saying to them?

This video also communicates that non-believers who are involved in porn-production can legitimately speak out about what is right and wrong in the area of pornography.

32   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Dave.

I have no idea what their intention is. But I do know that the video is pretty clear. It states explicitly that adult films are for consenting adults, by consenting adults. Period. The obvious inference from this is that pornography is okay if it only involves consenting adults

It is… it is not for consenting monkeys… but it is also a sin… as is going to a bar getting drunk and sleeping with a bar slut… but still that is “consenting adults”…

iggy

33   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Iggy,
I thought you weren’t going to read my comments any more?

34   troy    http://www.sheepandgoats.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Chris L.
Ron J. could have shared what porn’s done for him…make him a millionaire!

Erica
My brother’s son has been caught looking at porn on the computer; more than once. My advice to him, get rid of the internet/computer. Cut it off and throw it out. I would do anything necessary to make sure it wasn’t accessible. These are my thoughts…my opinions. I know the devistation porn can bring to a home. I might be a bit more hard-lined than some.

troy

35   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Dave,

I understand it may not have been a good move – that said, I also assumed that “implying” had to be intentional. If you allow for accidental implication – that’s another story.

Neil

36   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
January 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Troy,
I guess I was not fair in my comment because I did not share everything. This kid has been sexually abused by many different people while he was child. This is something he has never dealt with. I think the porn, in his case, is a symptom of a greater problem. I think tossing the computer is not targeting the actual problem. It is a reaction. Just my opinion.

37   dave    http://www.mindfulmission.com
January 15th, 2008 at 12:59 pm

I believe I said that the video implies, not that XXXChurch implies. And I don’t think that the implication was necessarily intentional.

Again – I like some/a lot of what XXXChurch does. I just don’t get their approach on this video.

38   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Dave,

Thanks for pointing out the distinction.

Neil

39   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Troy,

Chris L.
Ron J. could have shared what porn’s done for him…make him a millionaire!

While I am guessing that this is tongue-in-cheek, my suggestion would not have included Ron J.

Rather, it might have been similar to the anti-meth ads (if you’ve seen any of them). For instance, have a stark setting with a tight-shot on a young, sharply dressed guy:

“When I was in junior high, some friends and I took one of my dad’s porn tapes and watched it at a slumber party. We had a great time, I thought.

After they left, I found myself going back to those tapes more and more, fantasizing how wonderful sex would be with all those women. It was OK, though, because I thought I could quit whenever I wanted to.

“After I got married, I still watched porn, doing my best to hide it from my wife. Even though I thought I could quit, I just couldn’t do it. No matter how much she pleaded or how hard I tried, I kept coming back to those fantasy women, with whom nobody could compete to meet my desires.”

Camera angle changes and slowly comes out, revealing that he’s sitting on a folding chair in the middle of an empty room.

“But now things have changed. Finally, she gave up and left, taking the kids and pretty much everything else with her.

I didn’t have the heart to tell her that I found our boy looking at naked pictures on the internet the week before she left.

I hope he figures out how to quit. I never did…”
__________

Hopefully, you get the idea of what I was saying.

40   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Neil,
I too know the difference between imply and infer, I was just being sarcastic.

In the case of an advertisement or promotional video, they are really the same thing, at least to some extent. If you produce something from which someone can make a strong inference contrary to your point, it seems that you’re not doing a good job of communicating. Obviously, there seems to be some who will always twist things, but I don’t think that’s really the case with those of us here.

One example I like is this from my Spanish teacher. Chevrolet was trying to sell the Nova in Mexico, and was having little success. Of course when they realized the message they were sending with it’s name, “no va” or “it doesn’t go”, they soon understood why. Were they implying that, or did the people infer it? Technically, I guess the people were inferring it, but it was Chevy’s responsibility to get their message across.

41   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Phil,

Understood.

Neil

42   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

My brother’s son has been caught looking at porn on the computer; more than once. My advice to him, get rid of the internet/computer. Cut it off and throw it out. I would do anything necessary to make sure it wasn’t accessible. These are my thoughts…my opinions. I know the devistation porn can bring to a home. I might be a bit more hard-lined than some.

Part of the problem with this approach (as a parent) is that in outright banning the tool through which it came, you lose the opportunity to teach discernment on how to properly use that tool.

In some cases, that is probably OK.

However, when it comes to other tools (like computers and the internet) which are ubiquitous and almost (if not completely) required to function in the working world and being “in the world”, it is more important to learn discipline and discernment in using the tools that to just push the time that they DO start using them past when you have significant influence.

A practical suggestion for ALL parents who read this board. Something we use is Spector PRO, which records EVERYTHING that happens on your computer. As a rule, our kids aren’t on the ‘net without one of the parents home (since a p-word is required). However, it is not practical to sit next to them on the PC from first through 12th grade, so Spector covers the times we’re not right there in the room. We check it to see what sites the kids visit (primarily for homework, though our HS son has a Facebook page to communicate with his friends), and whenever we see something remotely questionable, we talk to them about it.

43   troy    http://www.sheepandgoats.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Chris L.
I like the tactic of allowing them to make the decisions and being able to hold them accountable. But what if they know you can find out, but continue to make bad decisions regardless. My brother has only had his son full-time for less than a year. When he lived with his mother, he was left to do what he wanted, up to and including watching porn and running the drug and prostitute infested streets. The boy’s only 14 now. He’s had a rough start.
Once again, I agree with “encouraging” him to make the right decisions, but if this gets nowhere, I would make the decision for him. Once again…this is the stance I would take; right or wrong.

troy

44   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

troy,

In the case you’ve given, I agree it’s past the initial stages. Something like Spector may still be an option (if your brother needs the PC at home), but drastic measures shouldn’t be ruled out if worse comes to worse.

My son needs a PC to do a lot of homework, even when I’m not around, so we have a rather old one that he uses, which has the modem & ethernet card removed…

45   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm

BTW this is one of the first productions that was done. I think the point overlooked was that xxxchurch made an inroad in the porn industry and those in the “porn world” helped make a commercial against kids viewing porn.

It was light effecting the darkness… not “just” a partnership.

Now is it a great commercial…no… is it better than if Ron stated “Hey kids, come and watch porn and if you have the “talent” you too can be like me!” I hope one would agree.

BTW here is the first “Pete” comerical

Here is a couple of other xxxchurch videos…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8yOJqNXoeo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSeYF-dkoaE&feature=related

iggy

iggy

46   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I just thought I’d throw this out there: XXX church has an excellent free software you can use as well.

47   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
January 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Now is it a great commercial…no… is it better than if Ron stated “Hey kids, come and watch porn and if you have the “talent” you too can be like me!” I hope one would agree.

This is a fair and charitable assessment. Far more fair than the people who have said “OH GNOS TEH XXCHURCH LOVES TEH PORN!!!!” and then sit around and do nothing but pour derision, and condemnation on people who have struggled with that sin.

48   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
January 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm

A few thoughts…

If you are going to move a mountain, you start with a shovel. I think it would be a huge win if parents worked to keep porn from their kids. Obviously we want the whole industry to be shut down, but this is a great starting point. It is ABSURD to think that xxchurch is promoting adult pornography.

Also, shouldn’t we be ecstatic that Ron Jeremy is partnering with believers to put some serious boundaries on porn? what a huge opportunity for a great spiritual conversation.

49   merry    
January 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

I agree, Tim. ^

Porn is an awful thing. The xxxchurch, while not perfect, are one of the only ministries I see trying to help. Some of their methods may not be very helpful, but I think we could pray for God’s wisdom for their ministry. :)

50   Simon Johnson    http://www.johnankerberg.org/
January 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Colosians 2:20   If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

The World Needs Christ. They don’t need a bunch of moralists running around warning people about Porn. Like I said, the way the church supposed to fight porn and all other sins is preach Christ Crucified for Sinners.

If XXXChurch were able to wave their magic phallus and make the porn problem disappear then they still would not have converted one person to Christianity. Their efforts, although well meaning, are a complete waste of time if they are not preaching Christ Crucified for Sinners.

51   amy    
January 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Also, shouldn’t we be ecstatic that Ron Jeremy is partnering with believers to put some serious boundaries on porn?

No, because this is a partnership between believers and unbelievers.

Should the early Christians have joined with Saul before his conversion in a teaching ministry regarding proper boundaries in persecuting the church? Throw stones at Christians . . . just make sure you miss the kids.

52   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

I understand where your coming from, Nathan. I certainly don’t think XXX Church would purposely do anything to promote porn, this just seems odd to me.

I guess I really don’t see why anyone would think kids would listen to Ron Jeremy here. For one thing, it’s the old forbidden fruit thing, and, like Chris L. said, it’s similar to the cigarette manufacturers using Joe Camel to tell kids not to smoke yet.

53   Phil Miller    http://veritasfellowship.blogspot.com
January 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Simon,
I think the main emphasis of XXX Church’s ministry is to Christians right now. They do reach out to non-Christians, too, I suppose. I don’t know that they’re moralizing, as they seem to point to Christ as the true way of deliverance from addiction.

54   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Simon,

I think the comment about waving the “magic phallus” is out of line when referring to the ministry of our brothers in Christ.

Before anyones questions their motives they should watch the clip dome by CBN News – you can find it here: http://xxxchurch.com/pornpatrol/petethepuppet.php

I can’t believe I’m recommending CBN News…

Neil

55   Simon Johnson    http://www.johnankerberg.org/
January 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I think the ‘magic phallus’ comment is completely appropriate since they are the creators of Wally the Wiener.

56   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm

The World Needs Christ. They don’t need a bunch of moralists running around warning people about Porn.

[...]

Their efforts, although well meaning, are a complete waste of time if they are not preaching Christ Crucified for Sinners.

I agree that the world needs Christ, but I think that an “all or nothing” stance is not necessarily the best way to bring Christ to the world.

If you were to replace the word “porn” with “abortion”, would you still agree? Is stopping a young, unwed mother from killing her child – even if she does not accept Christ in the process – not desirable?

There are documented linkages between porn usage and child abuse (sexual and physical abuse), spouse abuse, infidelity, serial murder, along with other impacts beyond the person using it.

While evangelism is, indeed, the key piece of ‘being light in the darkness’, it is not the only role of a Christian in society.

57   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Simon,

Neil’s point is that bringing in such hyperbole is not helpful to the conversation, per our discussion on tone and the update to the “How We Seek to Be Different” guidelines on commenting.

58   Tim Reed, Owosso MI    http://churchvoices.com
January 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

The World Needs Christ. They don’t need a bunch of moralists running around warning people about Porn. Like I said, the way the church supposed to fight porn and all other sins is preach Christ Crucified for Sinners.

If you believe porn has a negative effect on families and individuals then warning people to avoid it as as much a work for Godly people as providing medical care to the injured. Or we Samaritans could just preach Christ to beaten victims as they die.

59   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

On the video they say that they have not had any converts w/i the industry – but they have some good relationships that are allowing them to “preach” – though I have a hunch that their manner is not preachy enough…

Within the church they seem to (or claim to) be having quite an impact.

Neil

60   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm

OK Chris, my links come up as full URL’s and your’s as hyperlinks, maybe you can drop me a note on how to do that…

Neil

61   Erica Martino    http://joemartino.name/erica
January 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Tim,
What a powerful statement! You are absolutely right!

62   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Neil,

There are little buttons above the comments section above ^

There is a button that looks like >>

If you click on it, it has a bunch of buttons you can use to insert links and things by highlighting where you want the link.

63   Neil    
January 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

DOH! All this time I’ve been typing the html codes by hand. Geesh!

Thanks for the new toys.

Neil

64   Steve    
January 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

I side with the ODM on this one.

The xxxchurch, IMHO, is crossing some serious lines. The inflatable phallus is in extremely bad taste.

But faced with choice A or choice B, I’d take choice A. God says that his word will not return to Him void, it will accomplish exactly what He wants it to do. Let’s just believe him and let shoddy gimmicks like these fall by the weyside.

65   Sandman    
January 16th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I don’t see these as the only options.

1 Corinthians 1:18 comes to mind when quoting Scripture to those who aren’t on board with the Bible as God’s Word, so that rules out A.

Option B is a no go for me because it requires, in my mind an unnecessary accommodation to be made.

There are many things that may be legal, but not necesarily right. Porn is legal for adults to consume, but because the industry is doing something to address the issue of kids and porn…it’s like putting a halo on the industry for doing one thing while neglecting the other lives and relationships being destroyed by it.

How about option C: Use people whose lives have been affected by porn as a whole. People whose marriages have been wrecked, kids who found the stash, people who got sucked into the industry and didn’t consider the consequences later when they got out. That way, the focus is on the real problem (and victims) and avoid the sensationalism of the church and the porn star working together.

66   Sandman    
January 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Shoot, I missed Chris L’s option C that says the same thing I said. Sorry.

But, that does show that this doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition.

67   Diogenes    
January 17th, 2008 at 8:22 am

I am having a hard time following the discussion here. Who is the intended audience for the commercial? Children or Parents?

68   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 17th, 2008 at 9:45 am

D-

I think that the intended audience is children (not sure of age range), and as I think I noted above, giving them a message to keep away from porn is a good thing (with or without scripture references). Where I think some legitimate criticism lies is that the “it is intended for consenting adults” just puts off the problem rather than completely addressing it.

69   Diogenes    
January 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am

Thanks Chris L,

I guess I can’t see the value of including a cameo appearance of Ron Jeremy in a video for children. Are they supposed to know who he is? How adults out of 100 know who he is? I didn’t know who he was.

Perhaps those who made the commerical think it has value in “building a bridge” to the porn industry but I see no value from including him in making a commercial that will prevent children from viewing porn.

70   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
January 17th, 2008 at 10:24 am

For the record, I’ve not seen this commercial and I don’t know who he is. I wouldn’t recognize him if i tripped over him so to speak.

71   pastorboy    http://www.thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com
January 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am

I wouldn’t warn them about pornography- I would warn them about sin in general and the wrath that is to come.

72   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
January 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am

D-,

I’m not sure I really caught why RJ was needed in it, either (or how kids would know him from Adam).

PB -

In the context of the OP, we’re talking about trying to stem the usage of pornography in the general public – not just the church. While evangelism is important, I’m not sure how effective using scripture or stressing sin/judgement would be in a PSA against porn…