Upon receiving the latest issue, I was surprised at what you allowed to be printed in a “ministry” magazine. While I understand that sculpture and drawings are “art” and some license can be granted, I felt that the cover photo and the picture of Adam and Eve on page 30 were inappropriate. How is it justified, whether through art or other means, to show a woman’s breast in a Christian magazine? If your attempt is to help pastors and church leaders strive for sexual purity, why put images in their head that could lead to other things.

Furthermore, I was astounded to find the picture of the couple on page 45. He has no shirt. She is wearing a shirt that seemingly could fall off at any moment. As if that weren’t enough, neither of them is wearing a wedding band and the article is about sex.

I realize that you may write me off as an ultra-conservative minister who is overly sensitive on this matter. I pray you do not. I urge you to reevaluate the message being sent by these photos in your latest issue. While I applaud your effort to discuss such a difficult issue, I feel the decision to include the pictures I mentioned was unwise.

Ben

Hey Ben:
Thanks for writing. No, I’m not leaving this one out on the coffee table at home, either. But the cover image alone did spark excellent and God-honoring conversations with both my junior high age son and my college age daughters. The chance to talk about important things that are too easily avoided was redemptive, and that was my prayer for this entire issue, including the images.

Leadership means addressing vital topics in a meaningful way. We were trying to select visuals that would communicate that today’s obsession with sex is not just a current reality but one that the church throughout the world and throughout time has faced.

We felt the classical art from Pallas-Athena (I think the figures, depicting one of Austria’s rivers, are actually Neptune and his consort) and Lucas Cranach’s (a friend of Martin Luther) depiction of Adam and Eve in the Garden was a tasteful way of doing that. We figured anyone mature enough to visit an art museum without embarrassment (and Leadership readers certainly are) could understand what the images were communicating. Nudity in itself is not pornography, as the original dress code in the Garden of Eden would confirm.

The happy couple in the picture on page 45 was simply our attempt to portray the joy of God’s gift of sex. We hoped our readers would identify themselves with the joyous couple. I admit I wasn’t even aware of the missing ring. That’s a legitimate point (though I must say that I’ve known at least one man who’s asked his wife to remove her ring at certain key moments—diamonds can leave a nasty scratch!).

And no, Ben, we’re certainly not writing you off as ultra-conservative. Ultra-filtered perhaps. But ultra-conservatives wouldn’t pay $24 for a Leadership subscription!

Actually, thanks for writing. Your honest reaction is what we need to hear. It helps us refine our sensibilities and allows us to better anticipate our readers’ tastes, interests, and level of understanding.

Marshall

On behalf of intelligent Christians everywhere, let me just say, "AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHH!"

The reason the church has such a marginal effect on this culture is that the folks who measure Christianity by its piety won't pull their heads out of... um ... the sand and engage it.

Such thoughtless pseudo-theology is akin to selling all and moving to the mountaintop to wait for the Lord's return. I like what I read on a t-shirt recently; "He came to take away your sins, not your mind." Breasts are vile? ... gimme a break.

I have subscribed to your journal from the beginning, and I have never found anything in your publication objectionable or problematic. Either my filter is too lax or I have too many other things to focus on. I have three sons, all of them are full hormonal and aware of the world. All of them follow Jesus. And what they see on billboards, on TV in commercials, or almost anywhere else gives me more pause than the cover of the latest issue. Honestly I did not see the picture on the inside or this couple (I will have to go back and look now), I tend scope out the cartoons. But this seems to be much ado about little.

Wow, I am amazed. My question to all of the folks that reacted negatively to a few photos. Do you receive any other catalogs or newspapers of magazines to your home? Do you ever watch primetime tv? I appreciate my brother and sisters in Christ commenting and keeping Leadership Journal accountable, but this makes me laugh. What would a non-christian or unchurched person think when they read our claims and this post?
Thank you Marshall for your thoughtful responses to what is a sensitive issue for all of us. Even though I would never say you pushed the envelope with this issue, I appreciate that you would tackle issues we all need to tackle. If only the thoughtful responses were more focused on the articles and the issues, maybe we could actually get something done for Jesus in our sex-crazed culture.

Does anyone consider how it is that the women's breast is so easily associated with sex in our own culture? There are a few cultures around the world which do not view breasts in that way, and women are topless for reasons that have nothing to do with sex--at least, that's what National Geographic tells me. What would happen if the gospel were to be preached to such cultures? Would we require them to be more "appropriately dressed" so as to not offend our own morals?

I think of Adam and Eve and how they were created in the nude. Who was ashamed of their nakedness? It wasn't God...

Sigh. It's my biggest gripe with Christian publishers. Too often the truth we find in a Christian bookstore is no truth at all, just a sticky sweet collection of Jesus trinkets.

Christian publications claim that they offer answers to people who are searching for God. Yet we ignore the biggest question in our society:

How do we deal with the current onslaught of sexuality?

I taught in the public schools for ten years. My high school seniors had all viewed hardcore pornography on the Internet—either intentionally or on accident. In another ten, these kids are going to reap what we have allowed Internet pornographers to sow.

The current cover of Leadership magazine is not some kind of slippery slope toward moral impurity. Internet pornography is. Let's not get distracted.

I wonder if those who had a problem with the cover, would also have a problem with the sculptures or paintings of Christian artists from the medieval period? Much of the world's great art depict nudes, and many of the great works of history were created by Christians.

I think the more important thing to remember is that it is not necessarily the sculpture or painting that is sinful, it is the condition of the heart that makes such things sinful. I think this 'controversy' reveals not the sinfulness of the naked human body, but a hedge that Christians have created around the sin of sexual immorality and lust. If we don't look at such images then we are less likely to fall into sexual sin or lust. If we do see such images then we 'MAY' be lured into sin, but the image itself IN MOST CASES is neutral. We see hear the same thing that the Pharisees were known for, and though it is not always a bad thing to build hedges, we must be wary of making those hedges into binding legislation, lest we commit the same error as the Pharisees.

I'm with Lou. This really does seem like a cultural thing, with some folks being more easily offended than others.

On another note, I just wonder... was the female body really what David had in mind when he refused to set a "vile thing" before his eyes?

Let me add to the discussion that we owe it to the Lord who created us not to make the opposite mistake: when I hear someone quote a verse about avoiding putting something "vile" before their eyes and the object in question is a simple portrayal of a woman's breast, I flinch. We MUST NOT conclude that women's bodies are in themselves evil, and we must be very careful not to accidentally teach our children that. We should of course teach our daughters that they are more than that, and our sons to value women for more than that, but (speaking of slippery slopes) the idea that a woman's body in itself is "vile" is a journey toward the burka, with its concomitant lack of obligation for men to curb their lusts if a woman is not suitably "covered." Yes, of course, we need to take into account gender differences in arousal, etc. - but the problem is sin, not women's bodies.

Be careful little eyes what you see …Sometimes its not what you SEE that makes something erotic but what YOU see in something. Fathers need to be wise about what we introduce to the culture of our own households, but we need to educate those in our care about the culture we live in as well. As an artist, naked statutes have no erotic hold on my senses but to younger eyes it could be…well, eye opening. This is where a man needs to lead (his family) not freak out because a Christian publication printed a picture of a naked statue. He may lead by simply putting the magazine in a less visible place or use it as a discussion starter, the latter being subject to age appropriateness of course. Lead aggressively, teach, coach and by all means trust the Holy Spirit to speak direction.

It's a good thing you didn't use Michangelo's David. Let's not forget that the human body with all its parts was among those things with God called "very good." While certainly what God intended for good can and has been perverted by humans, to call an image of what God created has good "vile" says more about human perception than the image itself.

Wow. This is unfortunate how much energy we put into things such as this.

But, if the cover of Leadership bothered you, then you'll really hate the January 28th issue of World Magazine:

http://www.worldmag.com/archives/2006-01-28

Dear Leadership Staff:

Thanks for the boldness to be brave. Honestly, I didn't even notice the "bareness" on the cover. Goodness, I have every issue from day one (1981) of Leadership and the cover picture doesn't in any way cause me to want to run out and go wild, nor does it cause me to want to cancel my subscription. I'm a great fan of Eph. 2:8,9, and live by it everyday! Of course someone would say, where's Romans 6:1? It's still there and needed very much in today's lifesytles...but so is "balance!" Just try driving 100 miles in a car with unbalanced tires. Thanks for your contemporary message. Oh, by the way, I'm a former State Trooper with a keen eye, but I guess I missed the wedding band as well on page 45 , but I did like the "smiles!"...May more of these smiles be seen by Our Heavenly Father this Valentine's day between Godly, Christian couples as they enjoy his great gift.

Sure, a woman's breast isn't a vile thing, but if it causes someone to sin it does become a vile thing in that respect. Images may be neutral, but the fact that they may cause someone to sin should cause us to curb the exercise of our freedom in Christ for the benefit of those who are not as free as we are. The Bible cautions us to not let our freedom become a stumbling block for others. Many may not see the images in the magazine as a big deal, but for others, a little goes a long way. I'm sure the point of the article could have been made even without the pictures in question. Sure, a few naked statues may not have been a big deal in the day and age in which they were created, but we don't live in that day any more! Many times we "push the envelope" with what we allow simply because we can, without asking ourselves if we should.

When I receive my Leadership Journal in the mail, the first thing I go for is the cartoons. Then the table of contents. Next the articles of my interest to me. Finally, I read it from cover to cover. In my quest to find the good stuff, I didn't notice any problems with the cover until the issue came up in your online discussion. They say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Maybe temptation is too.

When I read Leadership I unashamedly look at every picture. God help me.

It's very sad that you got taken to the mat for something like this. My goodness, the statue on the cover is outdoors in a public place. One has to do a good bit of imagining to fold any kind of suggestiveness into that picture.

And that World magazine cover, that's gonna bring some heat.

Wow, if you had trouble with the exposure on that cover, then don't, I repeat, don't purchase the video 'Charlton Heston presents The Bible Genesis'. It is filled with the 'classical art' images that leave nothing to the imagination. Just a bunch of old paintings? I got rid of all my movies that had indecent exposure or sexuality that was inappropriate in them, but I still have this one. Hmmmm...

I agree that it is sad, especially if this discussion is indicative of the Christian sub-culture of which we are all a part. It really seems incredible that we can be disturbed by images of statues! In a sense, I can see why the magazine devoted the entire issue to dealing with the challenges of ministry in a sexually charged culture. This is a sexually charged (sub-)culture all right. The energy flying around might not always be positive, but it is still highly charged!

Amazing!

This is a joke, right?

posted by jschule2: "Sure, a woman's breast isn't a vile thing, but if it causes someone to sin it does become a vile thing in that respect. Images may be neutral, but the fact that they may cause someone to sin should cause us to curb the exercise of our freedom in Christ for the benefit of those who are not as free as we are." Um, i think Jesus said, "If YOUR right eye causes YOU to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." (Matt 5:30, emphasis mine) That is the concept of YOUR accountability. Otherwise, it becomes a classic case of "The devil (or statue) made me do it." No way. We are all going to answer for ourselves, no one else. As far as I know, the Bible doesn't anywhere mention any special exceptions or allowances for blaming someone else for any of my sin, for any reason. It is my problem. Jesus did not say "If your right eye causes you to sin, go and gouge out your neighbor's". I would have to think that the Lord is utterly offended at any of His creation being called vile. "The Earth and EVERYTHING in it" including the works of art. Sheesh!

Leadership is one of the few “Christian” magazines that I subscribe too and actually read. With that said, I was quite disturbed by your choices of images. I love the fact that you devote an edition to things related to human sexuality. However, it seems very inconsistent to me to have articles about the struggles of sexual addiction and other sexual temptations and then to include pictures at the beginning of three articles that are sexually explicit (pg. 30; pg. 39) or suggestive (pg 45). Even something as simple as these pictures could cause someone to stumble. I loved the articles but thought it was a very poor choice to begin such articles with such a mixed message, especially when some of the articles focused on struggles with pornography. Whether these pictures are considered art or are not, the same points could have been made without including pictures that displayed partially covered human bodies.

Todd

I receive Leadership at the office. I serve as Music Director in a large Lutheran church. I was surprised and displeased to see the cover photo you selected. This is in poor taste for a Christian magazine cover, and certainly doesn't show respect for all the Christian female leaders receiving this magazine.

While I realize this is a photo of a public artwork, it's not something I want laying on my desk when the choir kids dash into my office for candy from my dish after choir practice. I was embarrassed enough that the secretary sorting the mail saw this and must certainly have wondered what kind of magazine I subscribe to with church funds.

Nancy

Excellent cover! Loved it! Very appropriate! It captured the essence of the articles in a very artistic and tasteful form. Don't change a thing.

Do we have any proof that this photo caused anyone to sin? Perhaps I read all of the responses too quickly. But causing you to blush and causing you to be concerned about others means that the photo has not caused YOU to sin.

Until someone has laid in bed in night thinking about all the things they can do with and to the marble statue or placed this copy of Leadership in a pile with their Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue to be secretly ogled after their wife goes to bed, I really don't care how many people are concerned someone MIGHT sin. It’s a statue, people.

However, I have full confidence that the editors of Leadership would issue a personal apology to anyone who was actually caused to SIN because of these pictures. But until someone has actually been caused to sin, I am of the opinion that the editors had reason to believe a naked statue is acceptable for conveying the importance of discussing the ancient (and clearly present) issue of sexuality.

I find it interesting that most of the responses to this editorial are critical of the position taken by the folks that have a problem with nudity being displayed in a Christian based publication.

Of course in today’s Christian circles, pretty much anything is acceptable. It can be hard to distinguish a Christian from a pagan these days in the good old USA. We go see all the same hit movies that our secular counterparts do. We watch the same television shows that our secular counterparts do. We divorce at the same rate that our secular counterparts do……and on…..and on…… and on we could go.

So it really should not be a surprise to see the culture we live in permeating various Christian enterprises. (What might surprise us is that Christian’s are supposed to be the ones doing the permeating.)

The editor, Marshall Shelly, pretty much comes right out and says that the reason for the pictures was to provoke the readers to be captivated by the topic of sex in the culture.

Quote: “We were trying to select visuals that would communicate that today’s obsession with sex is not just a current reality but one that the church throughout the world and throughout time has faced.”

So claiming that the pictures were intended to be a tasteful way to capture the readers attention really seems ridiculous, since the articles in the piece were not about the art of nudity but about sex in the culture. (I did not read the piece, so I am assuming the articles were talking about sex in the culture and not about nude art.)

You also say, “Nudity in itself is not pornography, as the original dress code in the Garden of Eden would confirm.

Though it is true that Adam and Eve walked around in the Garden of Eden without clothes on, they did so without shame only until they sinned. We don’t walk around without close on these days because of our present fallen and sinful condition. After falling, Adam and Eve were naked and ashamed.

As far as there being cultures that go partially or completely nude, are they Christian or Godless? I am not familiar with what happens to a culture that is Godless and then converts to Christianity, but my guess is that after seeing there own sinfulness and recognizing that God is holy, they may cover up a bit more.

Also claiming that this particular sculpture, the Pallas-Athena that stands in front of the Parlament building in Vienna, is not pornographic because it is art and has many levels of interpretation is walking on pretty thin ice. Simply put, pornographic means literally erotic writing, and today in our modern culture we can include pictures as well. Anything can be pornographic if it succeeds in creating eroticism in the individual. And what part of the sculpture did you decide to crop and put on the cover, why the part that would connect the reader to the articles on sex of course, why else have the picture at all?

If you know anything about Ancient Greek-Roman art you should know that the whole point in using nudes was to exalt the human form in all of it’s splendor including it’s sexuality, as something that was to be worshipped. That’s why the Greek Gods were portrayed in human forms, as the Greeks elevated man to the highest status possible.

Contrast that with scripture, which elevates God above the heavens and the earth. Man is just the “very good” of Gods creation on earth.

Lets just be honest, the whole point in using the nudes, be they sculptures, paintings, or maybe someday in the not to distant future a full color picture centerfold, was to be able to connect the reader with sex in the culture. But in so doing, you run the inevitable risk of bringing lustful desires before fallen human beings living in a sinful world, and one that is apparently becoming more and more over sexualized in this high tech shrinking global community.

Iron sharpens iron, so if it takes people out there who will say your magazine is running to close to the culture in it’s publishing ways, then maybe it’s a God thing, and you should lend an ear before you go where you should not go.

We Christians should be in the world but not of it?

I thin your reasons for posting the art are good.

1. Christian leadership has always been practiced amid sexually charged cultures. (Very good point)

2. Interest in sex is common ground between Christians and non-Christians. (Must we deny that sex is a good thing. Sex, as do most things, has limits. Sex with my wife is wonderful. Sex with someone elses wife is not right. Breasts are beautiful. Why deny that. If it offends you or you can't handle it, don't look.)

3. The gospel has important things to say about sex, but we need help articulating them in a way the culture can appreciate. (So often we come across as out of touch goobers.)

I've enjoyed the interchange. Some thoughtful (and witty) responses. If I were to argue with myself (which I do quite regularly), I would have challenged the cover with quite a different rationale: Tertullian's.

On the principle that we should not look at or listen to what we have no right to practice, and that polluted things, seen and touched and enjoyed, pollute (De spectaculis, viii., xvii.), Tertullian declared a Christian should abstain from the theater and the amphitheater. (And, I assume, from looking at statues in poses suggesting non-marital sex.)

Tertullian said that in the theater, pagan religious rites were applied and the names of pagan divinities invoked; there the precepts of modesty, purity, and humanity were ignored or set aside, and there no place was offered to the onlookers for the cultivation of the Christian graces.

Now THAT's a reason to question the cover. Does anyone have an answer for Tertullian? If you can't come up with a convincing rebuttal to the Church Father, I may have to stop watching 24!

I guess we just withdraw from our culture and see anything feminine as sexual and depraved rather the beautiful and created by God. I've got plenty of other reasons why you should stop watching 24 Marshall!

Seems like a very ilogical discussion at times!

If the cover of this magazine is offensive then surely those who rail against it must also stop watching television on the chance that they may also be exposed to nudity, foul language, inuendo, greed, lying, stealing, murder (not on television - surely!).

They will need to stop reading the newspaper as accounts of wealthy people may cause them to covet. They will need to stop going to the beach because some of those bikinis really don't do the job very well...

Where do you stop?

Sounds like good old fashioned legalism disguised in biblical rhetoric of 'causing a brother to stumble'.

If all these things are potential stumbling blocks then we really ought to withdraw from the world altogether.

Oh? We have!?

Maybe that is where the problem comes from!

As a recovering sexual addict, I have to say that we have to take responsbility for our own purity, not blame someone else. At my last trip to the grocery store, the SI swimsuit edition was prominently displayed by the checkout, so I averted my eyes, went to another counter and looked at my shoes for a few minutes. That's what it takes for me, so that's what I did.

This cover seems to be far more benign, but to those of us for whom it presents a temptation, we need to take whatever steps are necessary--have a friend or spouse make creative use of a permanent marker, tear the cover off, whatever it takes.

But only WE can be responsible for the standards that help keep us pure, not others.

Writing from the UK I just don't know what to say. Our TV screens today have shown video of US troops torturing Iraqis and you are getting excited about a photograph of an (at least) 100 year old stone breast.

Many of us take the example of Paul in Athens (Acts 17) as an example of how to engage our culture with the message of Jesus Christ, and looking back at that passage with the current discussion in mind, a few things stand out:
1. His spirit was being provoked as he was beholding the city full of idols. While we don't know what those idols exactly were, I'm pretty sure they weren't "whited out". They were raw and real. I'm glad Paul's spirit was provoked...
2. Paul not only "passed through" areas of life, trying to avert his eyes at all cost, but he examined these objects of worship. Without that careful examination, and one could say interest, of those images, Paul would have not have had the grounds to speak verses 22-31.

I'm thankful there are those whose spirit's are provoked, but let's make sure we leave room for those who, for the sake of those around us whom we love, feel the need to "pass through and examine" the objects of our culture's worship.

"Many of us take the example of Paul in Athens (Acts 17) as an example of how to engage our culture with the message of Jesus Christ."

Good point, David. Also to be noted is that Paul had enough knowledge of pagan culture to quote their own poet: "In him we live, and move, and have our being" was initially ascribed to Zeus.

"Tertullian said that in the theater, pagan religious rites were applied and the names of pagan divinities invoked;"

Tertullian surely contributed a great deal to Christian theology, but I think he may have begun to allow legalism into his understanding of ecclesiology. Christ himself said no such reactionary, escapist pronouncement. Instead, he proclaimed the coming of the kingdom of God - the rule and reign of God on all creation.

True, this is in a now-but-not-yet way, but I truly believe that culture can be seen in modern culture. That we can see God through good art, for humanity (Christian and non-) contains something of the divine image - which God called good - and when we express ourselves artistically, we create something beautiful, transcendent, and spiritual.

So go ahead, Marshall, keep watching 24!

"culture can be seen in modern culture"

Oops! Make that, "true spirituality can be seen in modern culture"!

Were we to be constrained by every conservative sensibility that inhabits our church body, we would be unable to speak with any cultural relevance. In fact, we'd be unable to speak much of the Scriptures themselves. I think we need a better theology of "reasonable accomodation" to not make every such opinion equal to a stumbling block. We're talking classical sculpture here. The dirty thoughts are all in your head. I I hope this, another classic Christian adventure in missing the point, is accompanied by an equally zealous engagement with the substance of the articles on the topic.

People who live in the U.S. assume that their cultural grid is the only christian grid to look through. Most believers living in Europe would wonder what all the hoohaw is about. For crying out loud, it's a marble statue on the cover of a magazine! The point is well made about Paul in Acts 17. We do need to know how to relate to the culture of our(own little)world, AS WELL AS to others' cultures if we're to win people to Christ.

I have only seen the picture on-line, but I can't help but think some people are missing the forest for the trees. Would that God could help us filter things through HIS cultural grid and that we wouldn't just assume that His is the American one.

I work in an art-filled building that houses a state Supreme Court. I have never counted, but there must be at least a dozen glimpses of bare flesh contained in the various murals throughout the building. It has never crossed my mind to consider any of it as pornographic. In this regard, I think folks should just grow up.

WOW! If only we as ministers and Christians were so quickly incensed over child sexual abuse, child poverty, racial injustices etc.

I think it is fine but others in my home do not think so...

If viewing a marble breast is likely to incite lust and unbridled passion in us as Christians we need to look to our interiors, not the exterior cover or culture.

As a small child I had an illustrated Bible that showed Adam and Eve as scantily leaf clad people - it helped me gain a sense of the Edenic loss. It also showed Solomon with a drawn sword, a naked baby and two semi dressed prostitutes - it's vivid image a reminder of what real motherhood is about not that division solves anything.

When I read the controversy I asked my two of my three resident 13 years to view the statue and comment - one said that she didn't see anything wrong with it but understood where the other people could be coming from. The other was perplexed but perhaps because she has only been exposed in her previous home to abuse, pornography and degradation.

The resident 17 year old said it was wrong to put it on, but could see the point of art and that it is our sin nature that has caused the disconnect between art and faith. She has been a Christian about six months.

My spouse, also a minister said it was wrong, but he overcame porn problem in his younger years so perhaps that influence's his thots?

So within my own home - there is a divide but not one that would lead us to argue and think the other point of view is totally without merit.

We see a myriad of vivid images of starving children and are not so oft incited to feed them...

One of the reasons there is a high rate of teen pregnancy, divorce, sexual addiction, and other sexual maladies in this country is that many believers permit children to grow up sexually unaware because it makes them, the adults, "uncomfortable" or seems somehow "inappropriate" at church. The result is not purity, but a twisted view of sexuality - 100% of what they learn about sex then comes from cultural sources (TV, movies, magazines, etc.). That is a scary thought!

I think all the complaints were much ado about nothing! Have we become so conservitive that even granite is to be considered erotic art? Are we so closed minded that we cannot see beyond the inantimate? As a pastor and Christian I am a afraid from reading the comments on the cover that indeed we have. It is a sad day when Leadership Magazine gets raked over the coals for that cover and the inside story was totally missed. I guess it doesn't surprise me though. In a day when homophobia, racism and injustice thrive in our country and the social gospel of Jesus is overlooked, why should art that was never meant to be erotic or exotic be spared?

I'm a pastor who counsels men and women, married and single, about sexual matters.

I'm a cultural observer who notices that many people who call themselves Christians act as if they are far more comfortable with violence, torture, war, blood and death, than the human body.

I'm also a woman. Wearing all three hats, I bless you for running the statue on your cover. Not only is the artwork appropriate photojournalism for your story, it delightfully exposes so much about us.

One theme that has been impressed upon my heart over the past few months is this: "We as the People of God ought to be a people who move by faith and not fear." I am weary of the ways we move, talk, and make headlines as a people who are fearful of the big, bad world that we live in. As I read through our Scriptures, there is a large message about being a people of faith and repeated exhortations to "fear not" or "not be afraid."

Getting worked up about boobs on a marble statue sounds pretty fearful to me. Let's move ahead as a people of faith and put our energies into something that is life-giving and faith-forming!!

Yes, Christians should avoid deliberately causing others to sin.

There seems to be nothing, however, that could or would not present an opportunity for others to be tempted.

Yes, I was surprised by the cover but in my opinion (and opinions are basically what this discussion is about) it is not pornographic or even deliberately intended to elicit immoral thoughts or activities.

A simple question for some who have reacted so strongly to the cover:

"What do you do with the 'Song of Songs'/'The Song of Solomon?'" According to 2 Timothy 3:16, ALL Scripture is useful. Or do you choose to physically remove it, black it out, or artfully cover it with whiteout?

Carl

I became addicted to pornography at about age 12 and did not become a Christian until 19 years of age. Since that time my Christian life has had its up's and down's concerining temptations to lust, to view pornography, to let my mind go where I don't want it to go. As a pastor, the daily struggles alternately encourage me with victories and dissapoint me with failures.

I am not saying that you should not have displayed the cover or interior photos that you chose but I can tell you, in response to one of the above posts, that yes, I did sin over the cover and the photo of the two young adults in bed.

I am not confident saying the magazine has an obligation to their weaker brother to the extent that they have to avoid all such photos, but for me personally it was a grave struggle having the magazine in my home. I disappointed my Lord with my thoughts and actions. I do not blame the publishers or question their choice, I am relating my testimony and response to the photos.

What grieves me the most in all the posts is the language and insinuations in almost every one of them. Because of my weakness (and yes, I know it is MY weakness, MY sinful nature) I am branded a Pharisee and a legalist. I am compared with racists and other tags that in no way reflect my belief system. Simply put, my besetting sin, my overriding struggle, is with sexually stimulating visual images. Even images that are not INTENDED to be erotic tempt me. That is why I do not watch television (except local news) but only videos, why I do not get cable or have the internet in my home. Like the previous post-er I avert my eyes (usually) in the supermarket and while driving. I know this is MY problem and I expect my brothers and sisters in the Lord to love me anyway, whatever that might mean for them.

I do not think I am secluding myself or separating myself from my culture. I still volunteer in my children's school and am involved in the community in many ways, but I have to set up hedges for myself. Don't judge me for my weakness, please, but help me, because it is a difficult thing for me to stay pure of heart and mind in this culture and while I am healthier and stronger than I have ever been, the war for me is still very intense and difficult.

You may have lots of excuses for your cover photo, but you have forgotten that you have different subscribers with different levels of spiritual maturity, and you have disregarded the weaker ones. Certainly, no Christian would object and ask why you have not made a cover photo of any image of a woman with one of her breasts exposed. And yet, certainly, there would be objectors if you would have, just like what you just did. I say it was a misjudgment on your part and indeed an unwise one, and uncalled for. It does not matter what your objectives are, for the same could have been achieved by words only without the need for images. Just think about this - if God, in His heavenly wisdom, thought it best (just as you have thought of) that images would contribute a lot to His words to attain His heavenly obejctives, then He would have sent Jesus Christ when camera was invented. But no, because words are more powerful than images. A picture may paint a thousand words, but a word may create millions of images which the mind has to struggle in order to filter out what's bad and could be bad.