Published on May 24, 2024, 12:42 am

In a surprising twist of real news, ‘porn star pastors’ Stephen and Angela Dela Cruz of the Living Faith Church in San Diego have opened up about their unorthodox integration of adult film involvement and leading a church. Too audacious for a trusted news source, this account seems more appropriate for sensational tabloid fodder like Jerry Springer.

Responding to an enquirer who wanted to understand how they balance their unusual dual role as porn stars and pastors, Stephen Dela Cruz ventured into a somewhat perplexing rationale. Dela Cruz insisted that they founded their church because no other church would welcome them; interestingly not due to their pornographic undertakings but primarily because ‘everyone is a sinner’. This fundamental Christian worldview seems to have been misapplied here as justification for establishing a religious institution since apparently any failure to find acceptance for flagrant, unrepentant sin qualifies one to start their own house of worship.

Stephen’s argument took an unexpected turn when he narrated an event involving a local pastor who fell from grace due to infidelity. The unwarranted comparison appeared designed to suggest that church leaders should consider accepting sinful behavior as unavoidable collateral damage, implying that pastoral leadership cannot operate devoid of wrongdoings.

Contradicting Biblical expectations which restrict pastoral roles exclusively to men, Dela Cruz negated all other standards such as maintaining moral integrity. Arguing against striving for holiness on grounds of unrealistic expectations seem like sanctioning open sinning simply because flawlessness is unattainable.

Dela Cruz further deflected criticism by questioning accusers about the timing of their last sinful act. The aim seemed apparent: deflect focus away from his actions by highlighting common human frailties, arguing anyone culpable of sin lacked merit to call out his explicit public wrongdoing—a classical whataboutism tactic dodging rather than confronting core issues.

The final piece-de-resistance was Dela Cruz’s envisioning his church as a sanctuary for ‘rejects’, those judged harshly by societal standards. His idea of providing a spiritually comfortable space that bypasses repentance and encourages wallowing in sin feels drastically at odds with traditional belief systems. Though masked under the guise of mutual appreciation for Jesus, this project appears more like an unauthorized immunity shield against accountability and seeking forgiveness.

Irrefutably, their rendition of ministry or ‘church’ feels less like a genuine house of God and more like an ill-devised platform offering culprits unregulated sanction to their immoral ways rather than promoting spiritual freedom from such indiscretions.