Pornography degrades the mind into darkness, dulling our senses so that we lose the ability to appreciate the subtle art that God has created all around us. It addicts us to fluff and triviality, and reality becomes intolerable.

In our previous study, we began the final section of the catechism, which is called Restoration. As we noted back in Question 2, the premise of this section is to know “how I am to lead a thankful life of holiness and sexual purity in conformity to and union with Christ.” Question 27-30 initiated that study by giving us reasons and guidance for how we are to make war against our sinful desires. The questions before us today, continue that line of thought by diving into the great challenge of pornography, its harmful effects, the danger of unrepentance, and the nature of genuine repentance.
Question 31
We begin with a notoriously difficult question to answer.
What is pornography?
Pornography is sexually explicit material produced to serve lustful desires of the flesh, activated through the channel of the eye, through the looking upon of naked images of males and females for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Alongside Question 29’s addressing of same-sex desires, this question fits well within the context of the war for sexual purity, for these topics form some of the most pressing threats today. Gordon’s definition is good, yet it is too specific. Merriam-Webster’s definition is broader (and, I believe, better): “the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.” Gordon’s definition could be similarly modified:
Pornography is sexually explicit material produced to serve lustful desires of the flesh for the purpose of sexual arousal, often activated through the channel of the eye and through the looking upon of naked images of males and females.
This clarification is important because, as Paul notes in Romans 1:30, sinful man is an inventor of evil. If the definition is too specific, then loopholes will be looked for and found. Particularly, if we limit pornography to being viewed images, then we exclude erotic fiction, which is generally more consumed by woman than men. Indeed, during our time in college, my wife was often dismissed whenever she warned other young women that their obsession with romances, whether in film or in book, was creating unhealthy expectations and problematic desires for their future marriages.
Indeed, the Bible sets the pattern for us by often speaking simply of “sexual immorality,” which is the Greek word porneia. Of that term, David DeSilva says that “Porneia originated as a term for buying and selling sexual favors, but came to be used to refer to a variety of sexual practices outside of marriage” (120-121). Indeed, the New Testament uses it as a junk drawer term for all sexual activity outside the godly sexual intimacy within marriage. Although viewing explicit images may be the most common form of pornography, pornography is not limited to the sense of sight nor to the images.
Question 32
Having defined what pornography is, Gordon now gives us six reasons for why pornography is destructive and must be avoided (Note: to reflect the changes to Question 31, I would simply change the word images to material):
Why is pornography so destructive?
Because the use of such images ruins the sexual intimacy intended for marriage, supports idolatry in the worship of the creature, dehumanizes men and women promoting abuse, especially of women, advances other forms of sexual impurity, creates idleness in society to the harm of our neighbors, and degrades the mind into darkness.
As with Questions 11 and 30, this question gives us a good list to meditate upon for ourselves and that we may have a ready answer in discipling others. This question is also worthy of our time considering because it can be all too easy to rest on the assumption that pornography is destructive without giving time to consider what exactly makes it so destructive.
First, pornography “ruins the sexual intimacy intended for marriage.” This is so common and well-documented that I have trouble even knowing where to begin.
Perhaps we can begin with placing much of the blame upon pornography for the sharp decline in both sex and marriage among young people. It is far easier to manage than an actual real-life relationship. It is perfectly tailored to whatever momentary lust one may be feeling, and thanks to the screens that have become extensions of ourselves, it is always available. Thus, many who have never known a screenless life simply do not see the value of putting in the effort having sexual intimacy at all, especially within marriage.
Of course, it also ruins sexual intimacy within marriage. Each man with an internet connection now has Solomon’s error open before him. Though he may technically have only one wife, an endless digital harem is always available. And it is impossible for a husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church while actively committing digital adultery. Indeed, how can a man find satisfaction in the ordinariness of sex with his wife if his mind is full of everything else.
As Alan Noble sadly points out:
Today you can find a pornographic depiction of virtually any fantasy. If you can dream it, you can find it, and you can probably find it for free within 3 minutes whenever you inevitably get bored of that fantasy, just dispose of it and find something new indefinitely. Humans have always been able to imagine all kinds of sexual scenarios, but we haven’t been able to make them exist unless you happen to be a tremendously powerful despotic ruler. We all have the power of Caligula now.
Caligula, of course, was a particularly disturbing Roman emperor, who is known for his for his incredibly debauched sexual behaviors. The Internet has made it to where we all have the power of the worst of the worst emperors in human history. And now, thanks to smartphones, we have it all 24/7, whenever and wherever we want.
Likewise, though women are sadly becoming ensnared in visual pornography at ever-increasingly rates, the primary pornographic snare for women is through narrative. Men tend to be more visual in nature, while women generally are more drawn the emotional appeal of a story. Many romances designed for women achieve the same function that visual pornography does for men. It creates a fantasy world in the mind, wishing that her husband was more romantic like the man in the story. Indeed, in whatever form, pornography is both a violation of the Seventh Commandment and the Tenth Commandment, for it is very much a form of coveting.
Second, pornography “supports idolatry in the worship of the creature.” To understand what Gordon means by this we should consider the Scripture that he footnotes, Romans 1:24-25:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
This is the first of Paul’s threefold statement of God giving men over to their sins, and he states that God gave people over to the lusts (or the desires) of their hearts because they did not worship Him as the Creator but rather worshiped the creature. As Peter Jones notes, these verses display that the only two religions in the world are worship of the Creator or of some portion (or even the entirety) of His creation. Thus, lust or sinful desires arise from idolatry and then add fuel to that fire. Pornography is idolatry in at least two senses. First, it is idolatry of the self because it places personal desires above all else. Second, it idolizes whatever content is being consumed.
Third, pornography “dehumanizes men and woman promoting abuse, especially of women.” This is likely this chief destructive element of pornography within our minds and for good reason. Michael Knowles did an interview with a former pornstar who is now both a Christian and a pastor. As is the story with many who fall into pornography, he wanted to be an actor and was told that doing porn would get his foot in the door. But interestingly, during one of his interviews, one of the interviewer’s first questions was regarding his relationship with his father, which was non-existent. He then reinforced the point that the pornographic industry is quite literally built upon both men and women without fathers. That is fundamental to what pornography is. It preys upon those who have broken families and are seeking affirmation from people outside themselves. Thus, it is quite rightly called abusive in that sense.
Matthew Lee Anderson also notes that pornography is not simply a violation of the Seventh and Tenth Commandments; it is also a breaking of the Sixth Commandment:
Read More
Related Posts:

Social media self-validation enshrines bad behavior as a sign of goodness. The very attitude or action that may be your problem, something to work on or try to modify, gets turned into proof of your goodness. Are you stubborn and obstinate? No, you’re standing strong when everyone else is trying to take you down. Are you manipulative and crafty? No, you’re shrewd in navigating relationships so no one can take advantage of you. Are you too sensitive and anxious? No, you’re rightly attuned to personal slights and the atmosphere of injustice that surrounds you. That’s the biggest problem with therapeutic crowdsourcing online. We take comfort in the idea that all our problems and challenges can be attributed to other people, to injustice, to the sins and selfishness of others—whatever keeps you from being your true self.

Not long ago, I came across an insightful column in the print edition of Wired that spoke of our generation’s penchant for “self-soothing” on social media by “crowdsourcing therapy.” As people turn to their online “community” for validation, they increasingly turn to “therapy-speak” as a means of understanding and expressing themselves. This tendency is downstream from therapy influencers who may or may not be real practitioners but have gained an audience online.
Just as perusing WebMD engenders false confidence when we quickly diagnose ourselves or our family members after a cursory look at medical symptoms, we’ve become overly trusting of the self-help gurus and self-proclaimed therapists online who give advice about various psychological maladies. There’s an audience for this, as confirmed in The Atlantic, which notes that many social media feeds are now crowded with “therapy influencers who tell us to be more aware of our anxiety, our trauma, our distress. Instagram is full of anxious confessions and therapy-speak. The TikTok hashtag #Trauma has more than 6 billion views. . . . More than 5,500 podcasts have the word trauma in their title.”
No one can deny there’s such a thing as real trauma, and abuse, and depression, and anxiety, and toxicity, and all kinds of social and psychological challenges that deserve attention. But surely we should differentiate between therapy with trained professionals who take an individual interest in your life and what The Atlantic dubs “Therapy Media,” an ecosystem filled with nonexperts broadcasting their thoughts about mental health for strangers. “The way we talk about the world shapes our experience of the world.”
Recent studies show it’s possible for people to “consume so much information about anxiety disorders that they begin to process normal problems of living as signs of a decline in mental health.” Surely that’s a factor when we consider all the dumbed-down diagnoses and simplistic solutions on offer.
Self-Soothing and Relational Breakdown
Nowhere do we see this problem more clearly than in the attempt to apply online therapy-speak to real-life relationships. The Wired column notes how the world of social media gives you the illusion of community while you burrow further and further into yourself. And self-indulgence these days shows up whenever you privilege your sense of identity, what you feel, often to the detriment of your relationships.
Not surprising, then, that we see relational breakdown as the result of some of the pop-level therapy-speak out there—suspicions that heighten interpersonal tension and raise the stakes in every interaction.

“She didn’t just lie to you or mislead you. She’s gaslighting you.”
“That person isn’t just wrong. His take is harmful.”
“The reason you don’t see eye to eye with him is because he must be a misogynist.”
“She doesn’t get along with you because she’s racist.”
“Your boss says ‘You’re difficult to work with,’ but that just means ‘You’re difficult to take advantage of.’”

When you’re safely cocooned in an online world that constantly validates your perspective, you interpret the words or actions of people in the real world in distorted and damaging ways.
Read More
Related Posts:

Authentic prayer, God-centered prayer, realizes that the promise of prayer is God Himself. Being in the presence of God is the greatest reward of prayer. Godly folk have always relished this.

It is easy to be critical of prayer, particularly the prayers of others. Robert Murray McCheyne’s words are often cited because they remain painfully true: “You wish to humble a man? Ask him about his prayer life.”
Our prayers reveal much about us. Prayers with little or no worship and focusing on our needs (usually health) reveal a distorted, Adamic bent. What they reveal is self-centeredness, what Martin Luther labeled homo in se incurvatus: “man curved in on himself.” Listen to prayers at the church prayer meeting (if one still exists). You will discover that the majority of prayers are “organ recitals”—prayers for someone’s liver, kidney, or heart. Not that we shouldn’t pray for medical issues, but a preoccupation with health is itself a reflection of how little we understand why it is we desire good health. We desire it so that the person we are praying for lives for Jesus Christ.
Prayer is “talking to God” (Graeme Prayer and the Knowledge of God, p. 15.). Sometimes, perhaps too often, the “talk” is all about us. We’ve all had those annoying conversations that have been entirely one-sided, showing little or no interest in us. It’s all about them—their interests, desires, needs, and complaints. Prayer can get like that: we pour out our woes, become totally self-absorbed, and show no interest in dialogue that involves “listening” to what God has to say. God is patient and, in His grace, He responds. But it shouldn’t be like that. When Jesus taught us to pray, He showed us that prayer begins (and continues) with God: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name” (Matt. 6:9). Take a look at the structure of the Lord’s Prayer, and it will show you that at least half of our praying should be addressed to the praise and worship of God.
Person
Many factors influenced Tertullian when he coined the term personae to represent the threeness of God, but he employed this term primarily because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “talk” to each other. They relate personally—to each other and to us. In other words, God communicates with Himself and with His people. It stands to reason, therefore, that prayer should consist of personal communion—talking to God with inquisitiveness as to His nature and His desires, and eagerness to learn about the things that please and displease Him.
The first petition of the Lord’s Prayer, among other things, reminds us that there must be a clearheaded focus on our part on who God is and what God is like. Theologians have reflected on how we come to know God and what it is that we know about Him. The answer has often come in this form: we know very little in answer to the question “What is God?” What we do know (because God has revealed it to us) is in answer to the question “What is God like?” God shows us what He is like by revealing to us His name.
Our minds, whether consciously or subliminally, are (to use John Calvin’s phrase) “idol factories,” constantly succumbing to “I like to think of God as . . .” formulas, all of which are seriously wrong, conceived by a persistent anti-God bias in our mental, moral, and spiritual systems. To avoid idolatry in prayer, we must begin by reminding ourselves of His name—whether that be God’s covenant name “I AM WHO I AM” or Yahweh (that is, self-existent, self-sustaining, self-determining, everywhere present, and always in control); or, as the Lord’s Prayer wonderfully encapsulates, “Father” (expressive of the newness of the new covenant and the access and status to which the work of our Redeemer has introduced us); or, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (as Jesus Himself disclosed in the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19). When Jesus commissioned His disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of “the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” He revealed the impenetrable truth that there is more than one in the one God.
Read More
Related Posts: