From the "I'm not making this stuff up" dept: Porn star now seeks priesthood instead

Taipei Times ^ | Jul 15, 2007 | NYTimes News Service

[fgoodwin]

Porn star now seeks priesthood instead

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2007/07/15/2003369673
http://tinyurl.com/2wv9qm

NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE, OAK PARK, CALIFORNIA
Sunday, Jul 15, 2007, Page 7

Some people have their midlife crisis in reverse, like Ronald Boyer, who for most of his professional life has been better known as a star of pornographic films, Rod Fontana.

After 30 years of sowing the wildest of oats, Boyer, 54, has searched his soul and chosen, to the surprise of family and colleagues, to seek a priesthood in the Episcopal Church.

From his work in the rented villas of the San Fernando Valley, where hard-core sex films are shot, Boyer has moved just a short distance west, to the Church of the Epiphany, which is guiding his transformation from pornography star to preacher.

The psychic distance, however, has been vast. In January, the lumbering 183cm performer was greeting fans on the red carpet of the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, along with the superstars of pornography like Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy.

In June, Boyer was carrying the Holy Bible and a text titled "Gospel Light" to a live Internet show where he preached on the relative evils of pornography.

"Is pornography a sin?" Boyer asked on the show, which is aimed at people in the sex industry. "Probably. Definitely," he answered, a response that reflected his own ambivalence as much as a desire not to alienate his audience. "So is eating carrot cake until you're sick to your stomach," he continued. "And so is punching somebody in the face. That's a sin."

Boyer's embryonic ministry, devoted to bringing spiritual comfort to those marginalized by the sex industry, is driven by his deep faith and by a medical crisis that threatened the life of his child. But it is a work in progress, fraught with the contradictions and internal struggles of a man leaving behind a livelihood that was central to his identity.

He has tired of performing in sex movies, but even now doesn't condemn it. "Not one time did Jesus refer to pornography, or homosexuality," he observed on the Internet show, which he began as a co-host in May. "Jesus could have commented. He didn't."

Still, to pursue a new path as a religious leader, he had to make a clear choice. At the end of January, Boyer, who is married to a recently retired adult-film star, Liza Harper, announced his own retirement and gave up directing and performing in hard-core movies, he said, for good. "I don't enjoy it anymore," he said at the time.

Boyer's embrace of Christianity was not a result of a bolt-from-the-blue conversion. It was a gradual awakening to spirituality, in part stirred by unsettling changes in the multibillion-dollar pornography industry, which has veered into extreme territory in search of new ways of selling sex.

His journey from one private corner of American society to another has, by chance, traced the contours of America's experiment with sexual liberation to a return to more traditional values.

For Boyer, his path completes a circle. He grew up in a conservative Southern Baptist community in South Carolina, where he was baptized.

The contradiction between giving up pornography and feeling its attraction was still apparent in June, four months after retiring. "I love sex," he said. "I love performing. I love the combination of the two. I could go back and do it again, but I don't think I would. I had a passion for that. I put it there. Now I've channeled my passion to a different place."

The process to priesthood will take several years. Boyer began by being confirmed in the Episcopal Church this year. He is undergoing training to become a deacon, which will allow him to conduct most aspects of ministering short of the sacraments.

"I am hoping he can bring hopefulness and a love of Christ to people who desperately need it," said the Reverend Hank Mitchel, vicar of the church, on a recent Sunday after services.

[PAR35]

I was, of course, referring to this:

God’s grace works on everyone who will let it .

Or a weak God who can only save those who will let him save them. So since they (you) can control what God can and cannot do, you must consider yourself to be stronger than God.

[Delta 21]

I (have) never said I could control what God could or could not do.

[joebuck]

"Not one time did Jesus refer to pornography, or homosexuality," he observed on the Internet show, which he began as a co-host in May. "Jesus could have commented. He didn't."

WRONG! I suggest he look up the meaning of the greek word "pornea" (where we get the word pornography) - Jesus condemns it several times in the gospels (In Matthew and Mark)

[PinkDolphin]

But that doesn’t fit in his concept of “Fuzzy God”
THE FUZZY GOD

If you ask around, you find that there are not at all many hard-core atheists about. Most people say they believe in “god”, but I want to suggest that they are usually not talking about the Creator God of the Bible, but about a false, “fuzzy” god, whom I shall label “fuzzgod” for short.

Unless our concept of God is totally based upon what God has revealed about Him- self, the word “God” has no fixed content, and communicates no objective meaning. As evolution has eroded trust in the reliability of the Bible, many churches have begun contemplating such ideas as whether God could be referred to as “she”. Let’s face it—if people are only talking about a god of their own imaginings (which is all that is possible if the revelation of the true God is effectively discarded) they might be conceivably talking about a three-horned cosmic cow.

On the other hand, once revelation is accepted as authoritative, there is no room for argument on the subject of God’s “gender.” Having been told that God is spirit, we are plainly told that He wishes believers to address Him as Father, not mother—end of discussion.

Let’s list some features of this popular god of today:

l. “Fuzzgod” is not a god of holiness. Whereas the true God hates sin and has repeatedly acted in judgment in history, fuzzgod wouldn’t do anything like that. Fuzzgod only makes people feel good, not bad. Fuzzgod is convenient to give comfort when you need warm fuzzies, and doesn’t really mind about you cheating on your tax. Fuzzgod is good to send just about everyone to heaven (or maybe arrange reincarnation).

2. Fuzzgod accommodates everyone’s opinions. We’ve all heard people say what they think God would or wouldn’t do, oblivious to the pronouncements of the Bible. They must be talking about fuzzgod, since the true God gas set down what is right and wrong regardless of our opinion.

3. The character of the true God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Many regard that as a little stodgy today—unwilling to change (evolve) with the times. Not like fuzzgod, who is quite flexible, depending on the need—sort of fuzzy around the edges. Fuzzgod’s adherents are similar. I remember asking a hospital chaplain whether he was theologically liberal or conservative. He replied, “Whichever the patient wants me to be.”

4. Fuzzgod is broadminded—offering many different ways to truth and enlightenment, whereas God the Creator says there is only one way to Him, through the death and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.

5. Fuzzgod is only “sort of” the creator of all things. When fuzzgod’s devotees are engaged in sinful actions, it’s convenient to focus on the “impersonal” aspects of the idea that we just evolved from animals- less sense of responsibility that way. But when they want meaning or purpose to existence, the idea of fuzzgod as some sort of vague, impotent guiding force to the evolutionary process helps in a fuzzy sort of way.

The “unfuzzy” miracle- working God of the Bible tells us clearly that He did not stand by while millions of years of death and accidents did the creating. That sort of powerful God, who caused billions of dead things to be buried in rock layers because of judgment on a sinful world, is quite uncomfortable for the unconverted.

A Christian commercial on public TV features children telling us that “God made everything.” I suspect it will do little to wake people up to the Gospel because most would respond, “Yeah, I know that God (they mean the fuzzy variety) let everything evolve.” A fuzzy god leads to a fuzzy (or non-existent) Gospel.

All of this underscores why it is so important to make it clear that pro- claiming and defending Genesis creation is about more than just “God making things.” It is about the authority of the Bible, and the power and nature of (the true) God. It is about the reality of the Fall and the origin of sin. Thus the ultimate concern is about the whole message of salvation—only through the blood of Jesus Christ.

---

The law of God condemns the best of men; the grace of God saves the worst of men.

[joebuck]

"Fuzzgod accommodates everyone’s opinions. We’ve all heard people say what they think God would or wouldn’t do, oblivious to the pronouncements of the Bible."

Boy, that's one we can all relate to. I learned long ago to disregard anyone talking about God when they start a sentence with "I think..." rather than "The bible says...."

[stainlessbanner]

Is this related to the “emergent church” in any capacity? I’ve heard the term tossed around lately - not sure what it means exactly.

[LiteKeeper]

There is a pattern emerging. McGreevy, disgraced homosexual former governor of New Jersey, is also seeking ordination in the Episcopal Church. Nice to know the denomination is embracing diversity so strongly!

[Huber]

Thanks to fgoodwin for the ping.

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (sometimes 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[If Mr. Boyer has truly repented and changed his ways, he has picked a particularly challenging way in which to do it. The analogy that comes to mind is of someone trying to quick smoking by hanging out in a pool hall. --Huber]

[rabscuttle385]

Yet another sign of The Episcopal Church’s continued moral and spiritual bankruptcy.

[fgoodwin]

I’m not judging the guy’s relationship to God and Jesus — that’s between them.

But as an orthodox member of the Episcopal Church, I have to wonder why he didn’t find his “calling” as a Southern Baptist, for example?

The answer is obvious: “anything goes” is the new mantra of the ECUSA, and so he probably felt this was the place to be. After all, “The Episcopal Church welcomes you!”

The Baptists would have said “no thanks”.

[AnAmericanMother]

Porn star who is "tired" of working but not so sure there's anything wrong with it? No problem!

[FormerLib]

Of course, this is happening in the Episcopal Church -- I wonder this guy couldn't have chosen the Unitarian or United Church of Christ?

Because even the Unitarians and the UCC have standards? ;-p

[dangus]

There was a day when I would say to myself, “Wow! That’s an incredible conversion! Satan must be furious!” Now, I check and see if the guy has gone Episcopalian first; the Episcopalian priesthood has become a refuge for crackpots to bring an aura of respectability (at least in the eyes of the media worshippers) to their wickedness:

>> The contradiction between giving up pornography and feeling its attraction was still apparent in June, four months after retiring. “I love sex,” he said. “I love performing. I love the combination of the two. I could go back and do it again, but I don’t think I would. I had a passion for that. I put it there. Now I’ve channeled my passion to a different place.” <<

This guy isn’t a convert. He’s a pornographer whose career is probably about over.

[Gamecock]

most of his professional life has been better known as a star of pornographic films, Rod Fontana.

George: "I'm Buck Naked."

[Gamecock]

to 34

[dangus]

>> And his choice of Episcopalian to devote himself to God and mankind is bad because...?? <<

He hasn’t repented; he’s just helping to make over the Episcopalian church into a porn-friendly place. Read his own comments in the article.

[Gamecock]

That’s the way I read it.

[dangus]

It would be totally wrong of me to make fun of your screen name, sausageseller, on a thread about pornography, so I’m absolutely, positively NOT going to do it.

[dangus]

Because, frankly, no-one gives a crap about the Unitarians and the UCC, so there’s no purpose in perverting them. The Episcopal Church, on the other hand, owns the National Cathedral, and more presidents and influential historical Americans were Epsicopalians than even free masons. Despite its dwindling numbers, it’s sorta the “flagship” Protestant denomination of historical America.

[fgoodwin]

The original (and lengthier) article is posted on the NYTimes website:

Man of the Flesh to Man of the Cloth

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/fashion/15fontana.html