Anti Virginity Moore Opines on Dirty Web Sites
Editorial hosted on two sites:
A copy is here:
(Link 2): What’s At Stake With Internet Pornography, by Russell D Moore
The timing of this Moore editorial appearing today is pretty funny, considering I just did this post about two or three days ago:
I’m trying to reconcile how a guy (Moore) who makes light of virginity and sexual purity can write an editorial making a big to-do out of people who have web porn addictions. (He depicts the typical porn addict as male, when, as I’ve cited in previous posts, it’s on the rise among women.)
Before I provide you with excerpts from Moore’s anti web porn editorial (you will have to use the links above if you wish to read the entire editorial), I wanted to quote from this page about a Christian demonologist.
You may ask yourself, “What does demonology have to do with internet pornography?”
Not a lot, I guess, but that’s not my point.
A Christian can sit there and be, let’s say, 90% biblical on their view points, and insist they are totally biblical in their views on Topic X, but when you look at their views on 10% of other stuff, their 10% nullifies the 90%, or their screwy 10% cancels out their claim to be biblical on Topic X.
Here’s an example:
- Some of what Larson [the demonologist] has to say about demonology is biblically based and has likely been of help to those searching for sound teaching on the subject. For this he is to be commended.
For example, Larson teaches that demons are fallen angels,18 possessed of all the attributes of personal beings, including will, emotion, and intellect.19
As fallen angels, Larson correctly notes, “demons are noncorporeal spirits,”20 that is, they are immaterial creatures with no extension in space,21 possessing no mass.22
To his credit, Larson explodes the myth that Satan is the infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent counterpart of God. In no uncertain terms, Larson affirms that Satan is finite,23 unable to forcibly coerce individuals to sin against their will,24 and limited to operating in one place at one time.25
While these teachings are certainly biblical, Larson nullifies them when he recounts his personal experiences with alleged demons. This penchant for inconsistency is evident throughout Larson’s teaching, and it is common for him to espouse both sound and sensationalistic statements on the same topic.
For instance, while Larson rightly asserts that demons are noncorporeal beings, he also teaches they manifest themselves physically.26
According to Larson, most of these occurrences border on nuisance, such as when demons have crank-called those to whom Bob was ministering deliverance;27 yet Larson believes some crafty demons have gone so far as to duplicate his own physical appearance, masquerading as Larson himself in order to obstruct genuine exorcisms.28
Source: (Link): An Examination of the Teachings of Bob Larson
Here is my point. As Bob Larson is to spiritual warfare/ demonology, Russell D. Moore is to virginity/sexual purity and sexual sin.
It’s fine to say on the one hand that fornication is condemned in the Bible, but to also chastise a Christian virgin for being upset her sweetie pie may not also be one, shows a level of disdain or disrespect for the biblical standard of sexual purity.
You cannot be all that terribly committed to sexual purity if you scold a virginal woman for being upset her honey pie may not also be a virgin when they marry.
You can say you support virginity until the cows come home, but I’m not going to be completely convinced when you then turn around the next moment and tell a virgin who is disappointed her boyfriend is not one that she is idolizing virginity, or is “being prideful,” or should just let it go (if he “repented”), because “we’re all sinners.”
Here are selected quotes from the Moore anti porn editorial – it is also troubling that he reads too much into the “married couples and married sex is an analogy to the church’s relationship to God” view:
- AROUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH
Porn Is Ravaging Our Churches
by Russell D Moore
…Beyond that is an even greater mystery still. The Apostle Paul tells us that human sexuality is not arbitrary, nor is it merely natural.
It is, he reveals, itself an icon of God’s ultimate purpose in the gospel.
The one-flesh union is a sign of the union between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:22–33). If human sexuality is patterned after the very Alpha and Omega of the cosmos, no wonder it is so difficult to restrain. No wonder it seems so wild.
…We agree with those-often even secular feminists with whom we disagree on much-who say that a pornographic culture hurts women and children through the objectification of women, the trafficking of children, and the commodification of sex.
This means that our churches cannot simply rely on accountability groups and blocking software to combat this scourge. We must see this as darkly spiritual and, first and foremost, reclaim a Christian vision of human sexuality.
..But it [sex] is also intended to bring about new life. An incarnational picture of sexuality, rooted in the mystery of the gospel, is the furthest thing possible from the utilitarian ugliness of pornography.
…Moreover, we must call for repentance in our own churches, and this will be more difficult than it sounds. Pornography brings with it a kind of sham repentance.
… Typically, for those who identify as Christians, a pornographic episode is followed by a resolve “never to do it again.” Often these (again, typically) men promise to seek out some sort of accountability and leave it behind.
But often this resolve is less about a convicted conscience than about a sated appetite.
…Without genuine repentance, the cycle of temptation will grind on.
Our churches must show what genuine repentance looks like.
…For some especially vulnerable members of our churches, this will mean giving up the use of home computers or of Internet technology altogether.
… We must also empower women in our congregations to grapple as Christians with husbands enslaved to pornography. We believe, and have taught emphatically, that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:23). But, in Scripture and in Christian teaching, all submission (except to the Lord directly) has limits.
The husband’s body, the Bible says, belongs to his wife (1 Cor. 7:4). She need not subject herself to being the physical outlet for her husband’s pornographically supplied fantasies.
I agreed with a few points he made, but not all.
I would like to remind anyone reading this: this editorial is yet another example that Christian married people are sexual sinners.
Churches usually regard singles as sexual sinners, but married people look at pornography and engage in other types of sexual sin.