[Abstain from sexual immorality] that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you.–1 Thessalonians 4:6
When I attended the recent college composition teachers’ convention last week, I walked into the strangest of sessions. Although I don’t recall the exact title of this colleague’s presentation, it had to do with the communication employed by strippers and exotic dancers as they protested legal changes in New Orleans. If you’re wondering how any of that could even remotely help college students to write better, then get in line behind me, but that’s not my point here.
The assumption behind the signs and slogans of the strippers and behind the conference presenter was that “sex work” was a victimless crime. Opposition to this work, they argued, represented a typical male-dominated effort to disempower women and blah, blah, blah.
The reality, however, is that sexual immorality, at whatever level it occurs, is not a victimless crime. Paul says so very clearly here. There are two positive effects of avoiding sexual immorality (which was mentioned much earlier in the sentence, back in verse 3). First, we won’t transgress the laws of God. That ought to be enough by itself, but second, we won’t wrong our brother or wrong another person.
How does sexual immorality wrong another person? It’s obvious how this works in the whole #metoo environment, but what of more “innocent” things. What if both parties consent? What about pornography? What about those nice girls in New Orleans who are putting themselves through college doing pole dances?
One of the realities of life is that every action generates effects. Consensual sex does not leave either party precisely the same afterward. Let’s take a hypothetical case. “Harvey” goes to a local club where lithe young ladies prowl the stage. “Lulu” particularly catches “Harvey’s” attention. She performs for him. He gives her cash. Everybody’s happy, right?
I can’t speak to “Lulu’s” situation other than to agree that it improves her bank account. But “Harvey” will go home to his wife or his future wife or his girlfriend or whoever and will not be able to keep from comparing her physique to that of “Lulu.” Is that fair? Not at all. Transgression. “Harvey” will have associated, at least to a subconscious degree, sexual gratification with money. That leads to transgression against every woman “Harvey” will encounter.
Sex is supposed to be a powerful overflow of the love that binds husband and wife. It’s supposed to mirror the love relationship between Christ and the church. It should involve self-sacrifice, mutual respect, and enduring, eternal love. How tawdry to reduce it to a money transaction.
Walk around my backyard carelessly and you’re likely to step in something objectionable. That only affects you until you walk into the house or sit in someone’s car. To think that you can magically clean your shoes and not affect anyone else is naïve.
So it is with the sexual stuff. While we cannot erase every sexually impure action, image, or thought from our past, we can move in the direction of purity and do our best not to step in it.