Legislation Won’t Change Hearts
Apr 21st, 2007 by Amanda
I just read Donny’s newest entry on the XXXchurch blog. This part really spoke to me:
And despite what many Christians might think, pornographers won’t be legislated out of business. They’re too smart to just sit back and allow such things to happen. Besides, legislation will NEVER change the hearts of anyone. I can’t tell you how much it bothers me to hear the ramblings of groups such as the Family Research Council, which seem to think we can pass laws to improve “morality” in our country. That’s just not the case. God himself gave us the choice to make our own decisions. Which of us is above God?
I have a dream that someday the church will get off its butt and stop talking about “winning the lost for Christ” from the safety of their pews. It’s time to get out and talk to people where they live. It’s time to stop judging and start loving. It’s time to start changing HEARTS instead of telling people what to do.
As well as this part:
I believe the Jesus I read about in the Bible, the man who loved everyone, provides a way of healing the broken hearted. That includes those who work in porn and those who consume it.
What can you do to “combat” porn? Love people and show them the way to God. Trust Him to do the rest. He doesn’t need YOU doing his job by telling others how to conduct themselves.
And remember: there is nothing anyone could ever do to make God love them any less. This includes pornographers, and it includes you.
These words apply to all aspects of sin, not just porn. This could just as easily be talking about abortion, murder, or preaching false doctrines. Thanks, Donny, for the reminder that God’s in control and we need to let him be!
That is true, no doubt.
But often legislation is put in place to protect the vulnerable, until the world becomes the kind of place where love has so saturated the population that people don’t feed off of porn, have convenience abortions, etc.
What it cooks down to is that until the world becomes righteous through grace, we’ll still need laws.
We need laws..yes. But we do not need more laws that are more restrictive. Gal 2:21 “I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
Yes we need to protect the eyes and minds of the vulnerable, but their is a fine point where laws become encumbering and legalistic. Per your previous post this is something we need to be cautious of.
Seconded, thirded, motion carried.
Other relevant Bible quote: Matthew 15:11
“What goes into a man’s mouth does defile him; but what comes out of his mouth, that is what defiles him.”
Any reason not to apply this to the eyes as well?
I believe the Jesus I read about in the Bible, the man who loved everyone, provides a way of healing the broken hearted. That includes those who work in porn and those who consume it.
(Bold is in original post, italics are mine.)
Is it just me or does the portion of the church which is judgemental make overcoming “dirty” sins more difficult? Those who struggle against porn, drugs, abuse, etc. are shunned, while those who struggle against “hidden” sins such as gossip and envy are left alone. They are all as destructive and the church should be providing encouragement and support for anyone struggling with any sin to be able to claim victory!
I totally agree that you can’t legislate morality. However, I do think that porography has a way of seeping into individuals in a very pernicious way. It has far-reaching effects that get in the way of healthy relationships. I am all for stricter legislation on pornography and adult businesses.
If we knew about all the people in our churches that struggle with, or are in some way influenced by pornography on a daily basis, we would be shocked.
We should do our best to reach out to others, but that doesn’t mean that we should place ourselves in a position to be tempted.
So far I don’t think anyone has argued that you can legislate morality. Civil laws aren’t there to make people moral, but to develop what we believe is the best possible society. Lots of different ideas about what that society should be, but that’s why laws change.
Lifewish,
Clever use of that verse. I suppose I’d answer with Matthew 5:28, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” I think He was pointing out the difference between being ceremonially defiled and spiritually defiled.
Given that the definition of adultery requires that one participant be already married, surely that’s just an extension of the tenth Commandment: “Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife […]”
If it was supposed to refer to situations where neither the pornographer nor the pornographee is married, “adultery” would be a rather strange choice of word, given its fairly precise meaning elsewhere in scripture.
Of course, I mostly just go with “By their fruits shall ye know them”. I have yet to see any evidence that pornography has negative effects on a societal level, so I personally would not be able to justify supporting a ban on it. I personally don’t like the stuff but, as I’ve probably said before, I don’t consider “ewww” to be a meaningful moral argument
“pornographee”? Haha.
I’d say the evidence speaks for itself, not because everyone who has porn becomes an offender, but by the percentage of offenders who have scads of porn on their hard drives and in their homes. It seems pretty likely that there’s a link.
If that’s the case, you gotta wonder how many of those offenders would have done what they did had porn not enticed them to do it. Maybe they would have played Tetris instead. I know I’m out on a limb, but assuming that the porn wasn’t there because of hypothetical new legislation, I’m not saying that it would mean you had legislated morality, only that someone was spared a sexual trauma by the absence of pornography. Speaking of porn enticing them, I think something can be sexually (or intellectually, or any other way) inviting while at the same time being morally repugnant. Would you say morally repugnant = morally ewwy?
First of all…How do you know if someone in pornography is single? There are plenty of married couples who work in pornography. So, if your qualification is that if everyone is single, then it technically is not adultery, how could you possibly know that?
Secondly, pornography demeans and devalues women. It reduces them to body parts and fantasy. It ruins marriages by setting up unrealistic expectations and diverting healthy sexual drives into an image instead of the other person.
Many people in pornograpy have serious issues that drive them into the business in the first place. It is not a job for the whole and healthy person. When we consume it, we are basically contributing to the exploitation of those people for our own pleasure.
Would people enjoy pornography as much if they knew the actress/model was an alcoholic that hated what she was doing, and felt trapped in the business?
[…] Viewing and this follow-up that I wrote for my wife’s devotional list, I found this post via Imago Dei. I get Donny’s regular ramblings via the Moderate Christian Blogroll, but I don’t […]
First of all…How do you know if someone in pornography is single? There are plenty of married couples who work in pornography.
Fair point. However, let’s imagine for a moment that you married someone, slept with them… and only then discovered that they’d been married to someone else the whole time.
Technically you’d have been committing adultery with this person. However, I’d argue that, since you’d have no way of determining this beforehand, you wouldn’t be willfully disobeying God and hence wouldn’t be sinning.
If we don’t avoid marriage for fear of ending up hitched to a bigamist, why should we avoid pornography for fear of seeing a nude married person?
Secondly, pornography demeans and devalues women. It reduces them to body parts and fantasy.
No more than online debates reduce people to disembodied minds. The only way this can possibly be an issue is if you’re in the habit of assuming that what you see of a person is all there is to see.
In which case, to be blunt, pornography would probably be the least of your worries.
It ruins marriages by setting up unrealistic expectations and diverting healthy sexual drives into an image instead of the other person.
I’d have to see some figures for that - IMO people don’t need outside help to be unrealistic. How does the average with-pornography marriage compare to the average no-pornography marriage? Has anyone bothered to study this, or are we just assuming that it’s bad?
Many people in pornograpy have serious issues that drive them into the business in the first place. It is not a job for the whole and healthy person.
Again, numbers would be good.
Would people enjoy pornography as much if they knew the actress/model was an alcoholic that hated what she was doing, and felt trapped in the business?
Well, the “hated it and felt trapped” bit probably applies to 90% of Macdonalds or Walmart workers. Have you ever enjoyed a Big Mac?
I’d say the evidence speaks for itself, not because everyone who has porn becomes an offender, but by the percentage of offenders who have scads of porn on their hard drives and in their homes. It seems pretty likely that there’s a link.
Similarly, it turns out that all those sexual offenders were regular users of dihydrogen monoxide. We must act now to ban this dangerous chemical!
If that’s the case, you gotta wonder how many of those offenders would have done what they did had porn not enticed them to do it. Maybe they would have played Tetris instead.
Or maybe, without porn to help them work out their sexual frustrations, they’d have flipped a lot sooner. Causes are not always easy to disentangle, which is why I usually ask for hard numbers.
Would you say morally repugnant = morally ewwy?
Unless that repugnancy translates into concrete harm to others, yes I would. If someone plays silly blighters, I am perfectly entitled to personally dislike them for it, but unless it hurts the rest of us I have no excuse for legislating against them.
Terri,
Sadly, there are people who would enjoy it more if they knew those things. Thankfully though, God can restore people like them and like us.
Lifewish,
I knew it was only a matter of time before someone dragged out the tired old dihydrogen monoxide argument. I had hoped no one would mention the “milk in the fridge” thing either, which is another way of saying the same thing. Do I need to tell you that dihydrogen monoxide use (or more accurately “abuse”) among sex offenders is essentially identical to that of the general population? Yes, some areas of the country have been flooded with it at times and yes, we as a society need to work on that. But currently, I’d say porn is a more serious matter.
I don’t have the numbers (I’ll see if I can find some), but the point I was making is that porn possession among offenders would likely be higher than among non-offenders. That’s where the link would be. Not so with dhmo.
“If someone plays silly blighters…”
I don’t even know what that means.
It’s a little surprising that this thread is so focused on porn. I figured it would be the morality part.
Well, I find that anecdotal evidence supporting both positions is everywhere, but that hardly seems worth linking to. The objective numbers I was looking for aren’t as easy to find. Of course that doesn’t mean there is no connection, but without the numbers I can hear the limb I’m standing on beginning to creak.
Still, I don’t mind saying porn is an invitation to bad places and that we both might be out on a limb if you’re saying it can be therapeutic.
How can one definitively prove, with numbers, the effect that something has on the spiritual lives and formation of people or society?
For instance, we have all kinds of numbers and records about sex offenders, but that only lists those who have been caught. Surely, there are many who offend but are never found out, or have not had sufficient evidence to be prosecuted.
How do you measure the difference between the souls of two people–one who has struggled deeply with pornography, and one who has not been exposed to it? You can’t put a number on an inner life.
Lifewish….do you have kids? I wonder if you would feel the same about legislation as your children grow towards sexual maturity…especially if you had/have a daughter.
I don’t have the numbers (I’ll see if I can find some), but the point I was making is that porn possession among offenders would likely be higher than among non-offenders. That’s where the link would be.
Then let’s take another example, like guns. I’d guess that criminals are far more likely to have guns than members of the general public. Does this mean that guns corrupt members of the general public into violent criminals? No, it means that people who are already inclined to crime are more likely to buy the things.
Similarly, I’d be extremely surprised if even violent porn caused people to become rapists. To my mind, it’s infinitely more likely that rapists are simply more into violent porn than the average Joe.
I say again, even if correlation could be demonstrated, correlation is not causation.
How do you measure the difference between the souls of two people–one who has struggled deeply with pornography, and one who has not been exposed to it? You can’t put a number on an inner life.
I agree completely. Which is why this is best left as a matter of personal choice.
Lifewish….do you have kids? I wonder if you would feel the same about legislation as your children grow towards sexual maturity…especially if you had/have a daughter.
I originally got into this argument because I enjoy playing Devil’s advocate. However, on reflection, I’m happy with my position. I personally would prefer the sex offenders to stay sat at their computers, rather than being out on the streets.
I see your point.
I still disagree with it, but I see it clearly. I guess that means you played a fine Devil’s advocate.
Yay! I’m finally ready to join the Evil Atheist Satanist Conspiracy!