Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The wrong kind of sex, the right kind of place
While we’re enjoying the public stoning of a powerful man for his very public sin, we might reflect on mea culpa of sexuality in the church. One journalist tells the story of Operation Integrity and its founder David Zailer, who teaches Christian men to form, for lack of a better phrase, sexual accountability groups. One meeting included the following men:
Kevin, 53, a real-estate agent caught by his wife looking at Internet porn before a Sunday morning church service.
Tommy, 35, a political consultant who spent more than three years participating in mate-swapping on Saturday nights, and regularly sitting in church on Sunday mornings.
Nelson, 38, a self-employed businessman discovered by his girlfriend carrying on an emotional relationship in cyberspace.
Evan, 43, a building contractor who claims to have had sexual intercourse with more than 1,000 women.
Another related article also mentions how when one congregant approached his pastor about starting this kind of group, the pastor said no. Too hot to handle. Pastors like that must know, and want to suppress, the extent of the problem.
back to top36 Comments to “The wrong kind of sex, the right kind of place”
I’m thankful for the folks in church circles brave enough to know they need groups in church regarding this issue, among others. AA and narcotics anonymous groups would likely have little difficulty finding church homes, sponsors for meetings places. Why are sexual sin recovery groups such a hard pill to swallow?
I would also be curious as to what our secularist friends on this site think of religious folks wanting to confess their sexual sins and repent of them. Isn’t this acknowledging our hypocrisy and relying on God for his help, what we’re typically accused of NOT doing?
Report comment to moderator
HSK — “Pastors like that must know, and want to suppress, the extent of the problem.”
How do you automatically surmise a conspiratorially desire to “suppress”?
Porn consumption is a problem that, no matter how much attention it’s given, isn’t going to go away and the recidivism rate of those supposedly “cured” is staggering. Such help programs could easily be seen to be of little value for time spent to a pastor already stretched or who has been given other shepherding priorities in his walk.
Despite the linked polls I’d contend that porn is a problem, more for some—less for others, for 100% of males alive because it is in our nature, or how we’re wired, to be aroused by visual images. That won’t ever change and the fact that our inventive gadgetry has made it virtually possible to do everything but tactility use porn isn’t helping with the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison wrote; “…when one congregant approached his pastor about starting this kind of group, the pastor said no. Too hot to handle. Pastors like that must know, and want to suppress, the extent of the problem.”
Harrison (or someone), please clarify. I am not sure how to take the syntax. Why would the pastor say ‘no’ if he wants to supress the extent of the problem?
In any case, I can speculate on what the pastor was thinking. He could catch grief from his congregants for even bringing this topic up. Sure, there are some members who will ask for such things as this (and a courageous pastor might just go with it, as well he probably should), but there are also some members who do not even want to hear or see anything from their pastor or at church that deals with this topic. They don’t want to know that the pastor has even heard of the word “sex.”
I just wanted you to konw that pastors can get at least as much grief (or more) from members for doing something about this problem as they can for ignoring it.
So, as it is for all Christians, the decision should not be to please men but to help them.
Report comment to moderator
Frankly, I could see a pastor stonewalling the formation of this kind of group because it’d open and reveal so many wounds, including wounds in the leadership. That’s dangerous business for any institution. I was simply sharing (what I thought was) an explanation for why a minister wouldn’t want this kind of group forming.
Report comment to moderator
Harrison,
…reveal so many wounds, including wounds in the leadership.
Are you saying we should ignore those wounds and let them fester or that a pastor might take that view to avoid possible problems?
Report comment to moderator
Someone eventually had to defend the moral scrutiny this blog has devoted to Spitzer’s downfall, and Harrison has kindly obliged. We aren’t just gossiping. This isn’t schadenfreude. A “very public sin” demands very public examination.
Is lust a public sin? Once upon a time, God considered lust to be a knowing, yet involuntary behavior, rather defiance of God. Fornicators and adulterers such as the men in “accountability groups” are libertines, not rebels. They don’t claim to be liberated from the constraints of law. They repent and do penance, and show up sadly in chruch the next morning. Penitents invariably reinforce law. Without their constant service, in fact, society could suffer a sudden collapse of order.
For these (conservative) reasons, I suggest that Spitzer’s transgression was mostly a secret sin, only marginally public, except as it feeds our social needs for periodic puritanical crackdowns. However, it’s probably useful to pretend that it was a public sin.
Report comment to moderator
So far in what has been written, it has been clearly demonstrated that the institutionalized form of church life is LARGELY unable to deal with this severe issue in the household of faith. Jesus did set up His church to bring purity to all mens lives. Not only are church clergy and laity unwilling to face sexual impurity in the church, they are unwilling to examine the system of institutionalized form (IC) itself to see if the form itself creates barriers to accomplishing the purity Christ has designed for His church. I have found many systemic elements of the IC form of church life that do this. Most believers treat the IC form of church life like it is the ONLY kind of church the Bible talks about. Let me give one of many systemic elements that are hindering sexual holiness among men.
It has already been mentioned that pastors feel caught between a rock and a hard place to talk about this “difficult issue”, specially when it might put at risk the financial stability of the church, ie, their pay check. We have all heard the sermons about the pastors “right to be paid”. We have not heard sermons about the scriptures teaching about pastors “refusing the right to be paid”. Paul did teach that those who labor in teaching and administering are worthy of pay. He also taught these leaders should REFUSE this right. He taught this concept with both word and example. The IC system cannot acknowledge the true implications of these scriptures because they confront the root of the whole system. When pastors meet their own financial needs they are free to address ANY and ALL issues of importance without concern for income. Paul felt so strongly about this that he said he would rather die than give up the boast that he ministered free of charge. 1Cor. 9. In his final time of speaking to the Ephesian elders about how to shepherd he included instruction on his example of “meeting his own needs and the needs of his companions”. Acts 20 The scriptures are being twisted and distorted to justify the hired professional clergy concept in church life. The staggering sexual impurity in the household of faith both by clergy and laity is only one of many tragic side effects of this bogus, selfish, elitist, lazy form of spiritual leadership. Many godly men have practiced this system for many years, but this is no reason in itself to not re-examine the tradition to see what the scriptures really teach.
Not only does the IC system set up leaders to be concerned first for their pay check and secondly for church purity, it sets the clergy up for a very impersonal, non-mutual relationship with the men to whom he is said to be “their shepherd”. This systemic shallow relational standard is a setup for sexual impurity to flourish. I will not elaborate on this at this point.
Report comment to moderator
Tima,
Paul emphatically did not say that ministers should refuse the right to be paid–he said that he himself did so. There’s a very real difference.
BTW, no, I haven’t heard entire sermons on pastors’ right to be paid; I’ve heard the subject mentioned, and I’ve heard Paul’s choice mentioned. A church’s people should desire to pay their pastor and not be suspicious of his need to earn an income–their love is pretty suspect if they don’t want to pay him. (Even Paul gladly received love gifts.)
Your strong stance against most of the churches of today is saddening. You’re talking about Christ’s bride. There can be different forms of church, and some legitimate disagreement over which is best. But hostility toward 95% of today’s churches is unwarranted and sad.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, it’s slander to assume pastors are concerned “first for their paycheck.” I’ve rarely met a pastor of whom that could even be suggested. Certainly it couldn’t be said of any of my shepherds in recent years.
Report comment to moderator
TIMA: . . . the system of institutionalized form (IC) . . .
what’s that?
Report comment to moderator
“lazy form of spiritual leadership”?
Our pastor works (in his job as pastor) more than full-time hours. He is available to counsel those in need or step in to help in times of crisis.
He could not do that if he had to work in another job.
Paul was boasting about not accepting pay. One cannot boast about that which is expected.
Report comment to moderator
Sexual accountability groups? This would be a modern soft way of providing support groups for people who ought to have known better in the first place. These people need to get down on their sorry knees and pray fervently for forgiveness. At best they could, also, talk to their minister or priest. Grownups correct their lives without absurdly looking for support from fellow sinners. The time spent supporting one another could be better spent with the family or preparing for the next business day.
Report comment to moderator
RE: #10
“what’s that?”
Ditto.
Inquiring minds want to know…
Report comment to moderator
Pornography is never alone
Report comment to moderator
I can understand why a pastor wouldn’t want to deal with this situation in a group setting. As Joel Mark says, a pastor could get as much grief for doing something as not. However, that, and Tima’s comment is not the major problem. (I’ve never heard a sermon on paying the pastor, and I’ve heard lots of them. The pastor’s salary, in my many years of experience, is always discussed in business meetings with him absent.) Nor, as Cameron says, are we letting a wound fester in order to avoid problems.
The real problem is that very few pastors have the training to deal with this kind of problem. Pastors preach against lust, and specifically pornography. I’ve heard such sermons, but they are not trained to deal with such matters when they become obsessive. This is true of all obsessions. Alcoholics Anonymous is there for a good reason. I knew a couple in Virginia, faithful members of our church (He was a deacon.) who were dry alcoholics. They faithfully attended AA meetings because they realized they were in constant danger of falling back.
Most pastors can’t handle that.
Other than telling them what the Bible says, most pastors are not trainid to deal with problems of this magnitude.
A bit of advice for everyong. The Bible never says “resist temptation”, it says (not actually, I’ve looked for it), in so many words, “flee temptation.”
Report comment to moderator
What is real training? Are pastors the only ones who can receive real training? Or are they just the only ones who could-but-don’t-because-they- don’t-have-time-to receive real training? That way, all of us, vicariously, through the pastor, don’t do anything helpful either.
Report comment to moderator
CHAS,
Depends on the training. I have seen where it is often the “trained” people who add much dysfunction and are not adding enough common sense to this problem.
I don’t question the value of serious biblical and professional training for such problems as this. But God still has plenty of power to use the untrained in powerful and victorious ways. The first key is to care and show it (which is not to minimize various levels of training).
Report comment to moderator
Not sure what you’re asking REG. People make careers of counseling these problems and training is an ongoing part of the job as ideas and methods change/improve.
To suggest that a pastor be fully up to speed to handle a worst case porn addict is asking just a bit much considering such shepherding would be just a small part of his overall job expectations. “[C]ould-but-don’t-because” might have any number of valid reasons following that phrase—for anyone, not just pastors.
Report comment to moderator
TIMA referred to “the system of institutionalized form” as creating “barriers to accomplishing the purity Christ has designed for His church.”
The power of “systems” and “institutionalized form” pale in comparison to the power of the blood of Christ when it comes to “accomplishing” the “purity Christ has designed for the church.”
TIMA speculated that financial worries by the pastor might be involved in “hindering sexual holiness among men.”
I don’t see it. You can take all money matters out of the equation and a pastor or shepherd of the flock can still struggle between a rock and a hard place on this personal matter.
Pastors who meet their own financial needs are often no more free in some churches than those who accept a salary for their full-time services. Church politics and other perceived restraints can be burdensome in either case and I have seen it both ways.
Any church that does not want to pay a pastor has every right not to pay him. God’s speed! Any church that does want to pay a pastor also has that freedom in full and has nothing to justify to some other church or outsider for that decision. Paul wrote of his own freedom to use “all possible means to save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).
I don’t think that sexual impurity is not really all that contingent upon the “system.” To presume it is may be to take your eyes off the real (and deeper) causes and contingencies.
Report comment to moderator
take the pedestal out of the equation
insert the preisthood of all believers
Report comment to moderator
Reg,
The priesthood of all believers refers to the idea that we can all approach God directly with our adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and supplication. We don’t need priests to stand in for us any longer.
However, we still need some to lead the others. Paul, Timothy, the chosen deacons, etc. are set apart for that in the NT and we must have similar leaders today. I know your past experiences with church leadership is negative, but the need still exists. We can’t all lead.
Report comment to moderator
Cameron – We may not all be leaders, but we all can minister in the way God has gifted us. In this case, if there is not someone in the church who is able to counsel men (or women) in sexual sin, perhaps there would be someone who could lead them to a good Christian counselor, & maybe someone (or several someones) could help pay for counseling for those who need it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – I have a question for you as a pastor. (You are a pastor, right?)
I realize that a pastor cannot be all things to all people, but this bothered me – A good friend in another state told me that her pastor has said, & emphasized, many times that he is not a counsellor. He does not want people coming to him for counsel. Isn’t some degree of counselling part of a pastor’s role?
My friend & her husband need some help sorting some things out in their marriage, things that are common in certain ways to all marriages. But they can’t go to their pastor to talk, & they can’t afford to pay for Christian counselling.
I counselled my friend as best as I could, as an “older” woman to a younger. But I know she & her husband need to talk to someone together. The situation saddens me.
Report comment to moderator
Famous texts that PETER LEAVITT forgot (#12):
GAL. 6:1,2: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
JAMES 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.
CS LEWIS: The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred.
The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices.
But perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful.
Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult.
We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God’s help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure,ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again.
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt at #12: This would be a modern soft way of providing support groups for people who ought to have known better in the first place. These people need to get down on their sorry knees and pray fervently for forgiveness. At best they could, also, talk to their minister or priest.
Wow, the grace and lovingkindness just pours out of you like water from a pitcher, doesn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes, PETER. Thinking about business isn’t a cure, at last for guys paying $4,300 a throw. “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?”
Report comment to moderator
“While we’re enjoying the public stoning . . . .”
I’m not enjoying it. Is Harrison Scott Key enjoying it? The use of “we” in stories like this is just so lame.
Report comment to moderator
Good for you, K. But notice, here and on adjacent threads, PETER is having a field day.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Karen, I am a pastor.
And I do do counseling. I have been trained but not to the point of having a specific degree in counseling (it was part of my overall M.Div.) Still, my experience in attempting to help people with couseling over the years has been my best education.
I know my limits as a counselor but I am willing to help when asked (while still protecting time for home life). I also know that pastors have a unique advantage that most therapists do not. In addition to confidential counseling, a pastor can also (with the consent of the person seeking the healing) provide access to and nurture through a community or family of faith. There is more to counseling that just offering wisdom and issuing challenges. The dynamics of mental, social and spiritual health also call for a supportive and healing community. A pastor can draw from that in appropriate ways in addition to offering counseling.
That’s why, generally speaking, I think it is sad when pastors refuse to reach out in healing efforts like counseling.
Maybe this pastor is doing them a favor by not trying to counsel people but that is still a bad sign for his ministry. In most cases, I think it is a cop-out for a pastor to avoid the tough or personal sides of ministry by claiming that counseling or visitation are not his alleged “gofts.” Well, maybe not, but that’s still really too bad.
In larger churches, there is more potential for specialization in ministry, but it sounds like this pastor turned away from a legitimate opportunity to help. But you did not and that’s kind of you. It’s also biblical for older women to counsel and teach younger ones.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O/#22,
I agree completely. TJ hasn’t yet finished his training in biblical counseling, but folks in these situations need to be ministered to, and preferably by someone qualified in biblical/Christian counseling, whether they be laity or clergy. I just felt Reg was misinterpreting the priesthood statement.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O – 23
Some pastors are able to counsel, and some are not called in this area. If a pastor isn’t able to help, its essential that he refer them to someone else.
I don’t believe that anyone who is within a church body should need to pay for counseling. This is part of the churches provision for those in need. It would be no different if they needed food, it would be provided.
I’m sorry your friends are suffering.
Report comment to moderator
Accountability helps to keep us from falling into sin that we are trying to avoid, especially one that we are prone to. If we are not really trying to avoid sinning, we will run from accountability. That’s what AA is all about-accountability, same with Weight Watchers and any number of “— Anonymous” groups. The church body should be a place where men can meet with men and women with women for accountability. Some issues probably should have groups specifically for those issues.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.
I know it’s difficult for protestants to realize that they can be participating in deeply held traditions that “nullify the commands of God”. In many ways they have become just like the Catholics they protested. It is difficult to help a sincere Catholic to understand it does no good to pray to Mary, etc. It is equally hard to help protestants to grasp that the clergy system is a tragic substitute for what the scriptures say about pastoring and is more a carry over from Catholic church priesthood system. I know how quickly the clergy throw out any authority from Paul’s example setting. Even when he directly says what you say he didn’t say, you have permission to throw it out because Paul really didn’t mean that… Maybe look at 1 Thes. 3 where Paul talks about working to meet his own needs AND says he has set this example for them to follow.
Paul did gladly receive gifts from the Philippians when he was in with the Thesselonica saints. When his need was met, he told them to stop the gifts. This situation in no way supports the current clergy system. It actually contradicts it.
I am not against Christ’s bride. I am quite for it. I am actually for greater obedience on it’s part. The fact that sexual impurity is RAMPANT in the household of faith across all denominational brands, it calls us to search out the scriptures for systemic error that is practiced by 99%.
So you think I’m hostile? I am simply offering scripture driven correction. The Bible is inspired for this purpose. Just because I call for systemic correction does not make me hostile. You might check with some of the things Paul said to the Galatian and Corinthian saints. He was not hostile. Neither am I.
Joel Mark
The power of the blood of Christ is only effective on those who repent of their sin and walk in obedience. It is not unconditionally applied to all with good intentions yet who walk in the flesh.
The fact that you “don’t see” $ hindering leadership proves nothing except that your eyes may be encumbered with something. The power of money and the love of a better and better salary is VERY subtle and an easy deceiver. Deception implies the inability to see the truth. You have yet to respond to the scripture I presented with Paul’s teaching by BOTH, word and example. Maybe you can provide me an example of the clergy system in the NT where a man never works a job and takes 100% of his needs out of the offering plate.
For you to suggest that the system is not influenced and corrupted by the real deceiver is wishful and naive thinking. That is like a Catholic who looks at the papacy and sees it without error.
Report comment to moderator
participating in mate-swapping on Saturday nights, and regularly sitting in church on Sunday mornings
Considering the vast number of “swing clubs” in the US, this probably involves the most people.
Report comment to moderator
rdean – I’d ask how many such clubs you think there are (and their prevelance generally in the community), but don’t really want to get you further going down that path. I suspect their prevelence is fairly low and the clientele is fairly limited – but gets disproportionate attention due to the salacious nature of the operations.
Report comment to moderator
TIMA, 33
THANK YOU for your comments to Cheryl.
I ache for couples where one is Catholic and one is Protestant and the obstacles to their acheiving a legal marriage are quite significant. There is FAR too much control going on in the name of religion. Man-made religion.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!