or this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God . . . (1 Thess. 4:3-5)
This expression of the will of God is one which many Christian men need to learn; many have not learned how to take a wife in a pure way. They come to the marriage bed with the same sort of passionate lust which is so characteristic of unbelief. But Paul tells us here that Christians are to be different in how they love not just with whom they love.
Modernity has sent us all off on a frustrating search for the perfect sexual experience, and this vain quest has even ensnared many Christian married couples. We are told, and not just by nonChristians, that we have an obligation to have "dynamic sexlives." But there is a subtle distortion here which can only have one of two results.
It either leads to a frenzied hunt for the ultimate sexual experience, or it leads to an acquiesing frustration and dissatisfaction with "normal" sex. The modern apostles of sexual pleasure who push this sort of dynamic pleasure as the norm forget two factors. One is the fact of emotional inflation, and the other is our finitude.
. . . Paul tells us here that Christians are to be different in how they love not just with whom they love.
First, if everything is special, then nothing is. If everything is "dynamic," then the dynamic becomes ordinary. Some new thrill must then be sought in order to keep up with the "dynamic imperative." The law of diminishing returns has taken effect, and other novelties have to be tried simply to maintain the same level of excitement.
The second problem with this approach is our finitude. We are finite creatures, and consequently our sexual pleasure has set limits. But lust, by its very nature, is incapable of recognizing such limits. Lust demands from a finite thing what only the infinite God can provide. Therefore, when someone in the grip of lust comes up against the wall of their finitude, they demand alternatives. It is this unwillingness to submit to the finitude of sexual pleasure that has produced all sexual perversions. Consequently, Paul tells us to guard the marriage bed against the philosophy of the lusters.
A man and woman who accept their finitude, and who seek to honor God with how they love, will of course enjoy one another sexually. But that enjoyment will have the normal range that is to be expected from any physical pleasure. Sometimes they will enjoy a "steak dinner," and it really will be extraordinary. Other times it will be quite ordinary macaroni and cheese but still enjoyable. Should they enjoy extraordinary sexual experiences? Of course sometimes. But at no time should they accept the lie that sexual pleasure is subnormal unless it matches the standards of normality set by humanistic sexual therapists. Christians should recognize that "scientists" with clipboards who watch other people have sex do not have a firm grasp of what normal means.
This rebellion against our finitude accompanies a rebellion against the purpose of sexual union. The purpose of food supplies us with a good comparison. The biological function of food could have been fulfilled without any regard for the enjoyments of taste. God could have made all food taste like cold oatmeal. He did not, and we thank Him for it. But the pleasures of taste notwithstanding, the purpose of food is not for us to experience certain pleasurable sensations in our mouths.
Frustration with finitude, seeking to supply sex with a continual "high octane kick," will ultimately destroy sexual pleasure. That which is argued here is consequently a defense of sexual pleasure, not an attack against it. But it is a defense of sexual pleasure the way God gave it to us keeping the pleasure anchored to an act of potential procreation. To try to push it beyond such boundaries is to destroy it.
Now of course this understanding is subject to great distortions. Many think that people who hold this position are bluenosed prudes, incapable of having any fun themselves, and who therefore desire that no one else have a good time either. But suppose I was talking with an unbelieving friend and the subject of food came up. He asks me, "What do you think the purpose of eating is?" I reply that the purpose of food is to supply the body with needed energy. He guffaws, "You fundamentalist sap! Are you trying to tell me that you don't enjoy eating?"
Of course I do. But why do I eat? Sometimes I eat because I'm hungry, sometimes because my wife has prepared an attractive meal, and sometimes just because its there. But these reasons for eating are not the same as the reason for food. I may have many different legitimate reasons for eating, but I must never self-consciously deny the purpose of food. If I do, then ultimately I will cease to enjoy the eating. If the pleasures of eating are divorced from the biological function of food, then the pleasures derived from eating will not last long. All created things cease to fulfill their potential if they are removed from the place God assigned to them. Eating disorders such as bulimia illustrate how people can be enslaved to the pleasure, and yet be simultaneously destroying their capacity to enjoy the pleasure.
In the same way, a Christian married couple may have any number of reasons for making love on any given occasion, ranging from simple sexual appetite to emotional comfort. But none of this changes the basic biological fact, which is unaltered by the fringe benefits. So someone who serves the pleasure alone is like the man who thought the purpose of farming was to get a sun tan.
