This past Sunday I attended my mom's church, Redeemer Presbyterian in Jacksonville, FL, and had one of those aha! moments where dots were connected, lights turned on and insight gained.
The pastor of Redeemer, Toby Dubose, was speaking on Revelation 17 and making some comments about beauty and he had one line which was a bit of a tangent, but which hit home. He was speaking about our desire for beauty and said that one explanation for the prevalence of pornography is that God created us to drink in beauty. And, because Satan seeks to counterfeit all that God does, he provides his own counterfeit beauty for us to drink in.
The dots I connected were Toby's comment and Thomas Chalmer's famous sermon on the Expulsive Power of a New Affection.
Here's a relevant quote from Chalmers:
There are two ways in which a practical moralist may attempt to displace from the human heart its love of the world; either by a demonstration of the world's vanity, so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon simply to withdraw its regards from an object that is not worthy of it; or, by setting forth another object, even God, as more worthy of its attachment; so as that the heart shall be prevailed upon, not to resign an old affection which shall have nothing to succeed it, but to exchange an old affection for a new one. My purpose is to show, that from the constitution of our nature, the former method is altogether incompetent and ineffectual and that the latter method will alone suffice for the rescue and recovery of the heart from the wrong affection that domineers over it.
The use of pornography, to use Toby's words, is an attempt to drink in beauty. The trouble is that it is a sinful and counterfeit beauty. But I like the way Toby worded his commented. We are wired to drink in beauty. The question is, from what fountain will we drink in beauty.
Chalmers says that to dislodge a sinful desire from the human heart it has to be replaced with an object that is more desirable. Simply telling people that something is a counterfeit and unworthy of our affection is not sufficient to dislodge our love for it. Chalmers words find scriptural backing in Colossians 2:20-23:
20 Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
The New Jolly Commentary (NJC) on the Colossians passage paraphrases it and says that "simply saying 'stop that, it's bad' is insufficient in getting people to stop doing bad things." This is what Chalmers is getting at and this is where Toby Dubose's comments are helpful.
The main question we need to deal with is where can we go to drink in beauty in a way that is honoring to Christ?
This is where the arts come in, whether they are cinema, drawing, painting, photography, sculpting or any number of other things. Our eyes want to drink in beauty like our throats want to drink in water. So, we've got to provide our eyes with godly pleasures to drink in. And by the way, this is coming from a guy who has always been into sports and who pretty much had no use for artsy-fartsy stuff.
If we don't find ways to bring godly pleasures to our eyes, Satan will come up with ways to provide counterfeit pleasures. I realize that there are lots more issues behind pornography than this, but it's an important item to add to the discussion. Along with saying "no" and "stop that" we need to provide ourselves and our neighbors with "visual water" that is more satisfying to the soul and more worthy of its attachment than the counterfeits that Satan provides.
This is a good point, David. We evangelicals (myself included) often tend to be really good at pointing out what's wrong, yet lack the diligence to point people to something truly beautiful.
In the arts or otherwise, it would both behoove us and benefit others if we exposed counterfeits by revealing the real thing.
Posted by: Jared Bridges | August 09, 2005 at 02:05 PM
Really??? Ya think pornogrphy is a counterfeit beauty. I don't think that is a very accurate definition of the motive. Pornogrphy is more a way to fantasize about being a "super-stud". I think it is much more an issue of a Godly instinct being controled by the ego as opposed to submitting all God's gifts to the Lordship of Christ. The roots are way more about our fears of rejection and our desires for social acceptance. Instead of suffering under the reality of who we really are and going to God for strength to wait on Him, we go to fantasy to pretend. The cure is learning to grapple with accepting what God has given us and the acceptance of sex on God's terms.
Another source can be the use of sex to medicate because life is creating an anxiety we are not equipped to handle apart from the presence of God. Here, the answer is finding joy in the kingdom and being happy without medication. "I'm stressed I need a drink" is the alcoholics answer, but, in this case, the out is fantasy about being something that we are not. Pornogrphy has the power to make us feel OK for a moment. The problem is when we sober up we realize it is shameful and we hate ourselves. Pornogrphay is more a way to medicate when we can't deal with life on life's terms. I cannot see someone turning to pornography as some warped quest for beauty. I just do not think that is the root of the lure of pornogrpahy.
Just some thoughts.
brad
Posted by: brad | August 09, 2005 at 03:06 PM
Brad - I didn't think I said it was theeee cause of pornography - just a major factor. Yes, pornography is a means of medication but why that? There are lots of ways to escape reality - why is this one so popular? You yourself say it's a matter of "Godly instinct being controled by the ego" - what is the godly instinct here? I think its the godly instinct to drink in beauty. So, this godly instinct gets sidetracked by all of the things you talked about. And all of those things need to be dealt with, but we also need to be providing some other form of beauty to replace the counterfeit beauty.
Posted by: David Wayne | August 09, 2005 at 03:21 PM
Not to be a harsh critic but I think it is the desire for a few things ..I just dont think beauty is really one of them (maybe a teeny bit for some) but for most it is a sinful desire to be "the man" - pure ego. In other words, pornography is a fantasy about power and the self being worshipped and promoted. We think the satisfaction of self will make us happy.
Also the "yo duh" is just the lust for pleasure as a means to at least provide temporary relief.
The lust uses the avenue of a Godly desire for sex given to us so that we won't be lonely (it is good for man not to be alone).
I guess the sinful thing as a substitute for the real thing hmm??? I would say the real thing it is substituting for is joy and happiness. The thing to replace it with is TRUE BLESSEDNESS!!!
enough said...Love ya,
brad
Posted by: brad | August 09, 2005 at 11:41 PM
David,
A craving for pornography has a number of constituent elements, and I think the desire for beauty is one of the most powerful. In other words, I believe you nailed one of the most overlooked portions.
Porn use also reflects a desire for
* Immortality/Freedom from death
* Power/Domination
* Love
* Sex
* Excitement
And those interact in varying amounts.
God made women desirable for their beauty. It is part of His plan that we men should see women as beautiful. The problem here is that Christians have actually elevated female beauty by the very fact that we have lowered all other forms of beauty, in general. We Christians are no longer patrons of the arts because we turned our backs on secular arts and correspondingly hung many Christian artists out to dry.
Kings used to patronize the arts, be we Christians today no longer do. Because the appreciation of what is truly beautiful in art is often stunted in people, particularly among those folks raised in very strict Christian homes where the arts were frowned upon, we tend toward kitsch instead of what is enduringly beautiful.
This is not entirely the fault of Christians, though. Too much of what passes for great art in the minds of secular critics is nothing more than tripe. This left Christian artists in a quandary: cater to the new tastes and make money or stick with what is enduringly beautiful and suffer an inexorable march to taking a job at McDonalds. The third way was to get out altogether, which many did--a loss we are still feeling.
Posted by: DLE | August 10, 2005 at 02:04 AM
David,
I've just started reading D. MacCulloch's The Reformation (really just started last night), and was struck by the contrast he drew between the Medieval/pre-Reformation church and today's worship praxis. I wonder if our vulnerability to pornography can be traced to some of what we have set aside, specifically what is acceptable in the context of our religious life.
My essay is can be found here, http://www.pseudopolymath.com/?p=954
Posted by: Mark Olson | August 10, 2005 at 02:48 AM
Just reading some of the comments and thinking out loud here…beauty isn’t just what you see in some superficial features. There is an inherent beauty to the actual act of sex and something to that whole relationship that outright boggles the (my, at least) mind. Sex is there, God given of all things and its (ideal) results exceed the moment of physical union. Thinking that the act is the end all is also very superficial. It is to be part of the continuing bonding of man and woman.
What pornography does is to take that beautiful act, reserved for two alone, and invites others to watch. It doesn’t replace beauty; it dims its gloss making it…common. By opening that door there is a stream of communication stating that marriage is unnecessary for experiencing this beauty—it is common to all. Everyone can enjoy it, any time they want, by themselves if they want to.
So it’s a perversion, most surely, but a perversion of everything contained in the act and cheapening it to be something that can be put under a mattress when you need to or discarded when your done.
The problems are multiplied when it enters the life of a married couple. Perceptions can be skewed, expectations dulled and the truth of what one has is replaced with the cheapened truth (now lie) that one is exposing themselves to.
Don’t know if I made any sense.
Posted by: Rey | August 10, 2005 at 10:02 AM
Your post reminded me of something I heard Dr. David Horner, professor of biblical studies and ethics at Talbot, say in a lecture called "On Being a Virtuous Christian":
"You will never rationally and for the long haul say 'no' to things that are very attractive to you, without saying 'yes' to something better. Much of what we do as Christians is say 'no' to something (e.g., 'No adultery'). But very often we don’t say what we’re saying 'yes' to. We tend to say, 'Just say no' but we’re not presenting a rich, vibrant vision of what the 'yes' is. The vision we have to present in the church is 'This is where life is.'"
The lecture was part of Stand to Reason's 2002 Masters Series in Christian Thought. If you're interested, you can find out more here.
Posted by: Keith | August 10, 2005 at 11:44 AM
Oops...tried to leave a hyperlink. The url for the Horner lecture info is http://www.str.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/task=detail/item=AT200
Posted by: Keith | August 10, 2005 at 11:46 AM
The desire for power is also part of porn's allure -- men (in particular) look at porn and feel, "Now there's a woman/women who will do anything I want."
Posted by: Startled Saint | August 10, 2005 at 02:17 PM
I'd like to digress a little, leaving the porn issue, and pick up on the comment you made about cinema et al. It reminded me of something Francis Schaefer wrote in regards to Christians and the Arts, where he said that we have basically done nothing but cliche sunday school art. If we are to make art and films that 'take the place' instead of just saying 'don't watch that hollywood film' then we need to be making more than cliched sunday school films and make films that are actually good.
Posted by: Andrew Finden | August 11, 2005 at 06:57 AM
David,
I stumbled upon your "pornography and beauty" article right after posting a lengthy bit on artist Eric Gill over at my Are Men Really Human? (http://aremenreallyhuman.blogspot.com) blog. I added a bit at that article's end about your article and linked to it. Blessings,
Jon Trott
Posted by: Jon Trott | August 19, 2005 at 04:25 PM
Great thread! I continue wondering about the point re porn and beauty...
Let me add purity into the mix. If (an idea from Francois Mauriac) sexual immorality first and foremost makes us impure, what effect does that have on seeing beauty, or "seeing" period? Mauriac suggests somewhere (one of his non-fiction works) that since "the pure in heart shall see God," impurity means we become blind to God. Riffing off on my own, isn't God, among other things, Beauty's ultimate expression as well as Creator of Beauty? He's the capital "B" in Beauty. What porn does, then, is to twist, distort, and blind us to Beauty, replacing it with that which appears beautiful only because we've distorted our own inner lens. Saying "no!" to sexual immorality, and fleeing it as Scripture commands, is more than merely missing out on the real fun for a boring, arid, ascetic life. It is really to miss out on God's Life, and the True Hedonism He aches to drown us in. Or so this hedonist sees it!
Posted by: Jon Trott | August 24, 2005 at 02:51 PM
As a woman it is so refreshing to read the men's comments on pornography use on this website. Sometimes it seems as if a great deal of the men (and sometimes women!) around me support the use of porn. To read your comments is just precious. It makes me feel respected as a woman.
Posted by: ILikeReading2 | March 07, 2008 at 08:58 PM
As a woman it is so refreshing to read the men's comments on pornography use on this website. Sometimes it seems as if a great deal of the men (and sometimes women!) around me support the use of porn. To read your comments is just precious. It makes me feel respected as a woman.
Posted by: ILikeReading2 | March 07, 2008 at 09:00 PM
I really enjoyed your thoughts about this subject and I completely agree with you. While there are all sorts of internal motivations for viewing pornography, the pursuit of beauty is definitely a major contributor. I wrote a blog post about that very thing a while back: http://www.covenanteyes.com/blog/2008/07/04/six-reasons-why-guys-like-porn/
I love that CS Lewis quote you've shared in another post: "The orgasm has replaced the cross as the focus of longing and the image of fulfillment." It really captures some of what you are saying here about needing to drink in the beauty of Christ rather than rushing to the false beauty of pornography.
I work for the ministry of Covenant Eyes. We provide people with "accountability software" for their computers so they can stay accountable to others they trust about where they go online. It has helped tens of thousands of people break free from habitual porn viewing and helped to establish authentic, honest relationships in the body of Christ.
I'm curious if you would be interested in writing up a guest blog post for the Covenant Eyes blog about the vain pursuit of beauty in porn and what the seeking of Christ's beauty looks like. Please let me know if this interests you!
Luke Gilkerson
Internet Community Manager
Covenant Eyes
Posted by: Luke | July 17, 2008 at 05:39 PM