Knowing about, understanding, and pastorally caring for asexual persons

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure that anyone posting to this thread is Calvinist? I'm certainly not.

And "love your neighbour as yourself" is fine, as far as it goes; but there are plenty of other issues to wrestle with, aren't there?

I'm not sure about a uniquely Christian way of doing things, but I am sure that loving God with one's whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and loving one's neighbour as oneself, often looks and feels distinctive to a world where neither of those orientations are a given.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure about a uniquely Christian way of doing things, but I am sure that loving God with one's whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and loving one's neighbour as oneself, often looks and feels distinctive to a world where neither of those orientations are a given.

That kind of emphasis is typical of a certain strand of the Reformed faith. Lutherans, on the other hand, understand that family life and the civil sphere are governed by reason accessible to all people, summed up in the golden rule found in so many cultures. In terms of our righteousness coram homnibus, a Muslim or Atheist is just as capable of acting justly as a Christian. Indeed, it is by this common grace that God operates in our world through our various vocations.

 

[Paidiske]

In terms of our righteousness coram homnibus, a Muslim or Atheist is just as capable of acting justly as a Christian.

I don't think I suggested otherwise? If I came across that way, I didn't do my position justice.

But I don't think the golden rule actually is one that most people in our society follow, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.

 

[AlexDTX]

How do your churches respond, if it is acknowledged, pastorally to the spiritual and congregational needs of asexual parishioners?

A conversation about relationships outside of marriage reminded me of this subject which is oft left undiscussed and little understood. Since civil marriage, in most legal systems, assumes or stipulates sexual intimacy, a marriage can be annulled if one of the partners testifies that they have not expressed that kind of intimacy. Yet, most countries do not offer a parallel or equal status like civil partnerships (known as civil unions as well) for couples who are at variance with civil marriage including some asexual couples.

Asexual couples may be opposite-gender couples or same-gender couples, and they, at least strictly understanding the word 'asexual,' do not have sexual relations.
ASEXUALS: Who Are They and Why Are They Important?

In some churches, these are recognised. In the Church of England, this would theoretically include many of the clergy in same-sex relationships. "Church of England clergy may enter into gay [civil partnerships] if they assure their bishop they are to remain celibate." BBC NEWS | UK | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Gay cleric's 'wedding' to partner

I do not understand the concern. If two people (of any gender combination) love each other and live together but have no sexual relations, how is that different from simply being room mates? David and Jonathon loved each other and were "asexual". Jesus loved his 12 disciples and was "asexual". I don't see the problem.

 

[Hank77]

Not a problem.

Thank you for responding. I appreciate it. I really can't say what I think because I just don't know.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I do not understand the concern. If two people (of any gender combination) love each other and live together but have no sexual relations, how is that different from simply being room mates? David and Jonathon loved each other and were "asexual". Jesus loved his 12 disciples and was "asexual". I don't see the problem.

There are different kinds of love; a romantic love is different than a platonic or friendship love. Romantic relationships can develop into marriage or civil partnership which are lifelong committed relationships. The fact that their romantic relationships do not involve sex, and the fact that they may be two people of the same gender, has been a cause for prejudice against them by traditionalist Christianity and traditionalist forms of other religions.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Asexual relationships between two individuals of the opposite sex is perfectly fine. Asexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex is not fine.

Here comes the bigotry!

 

[AlexDTX]

There are different kinds of love; a romantic love is different than a platonic or friendship love. Romantic relationships can develop into marriage or civil partnership which are lifelong committed relationships. The fact that their romantic relationships do not involve sex, and the fact that they may be two people of the same gender, has been a cause for prejudice against them by traditionalist Christianity and traditionalist forms of other religions.

Thank you for trying to help me understand, but I still don't understand. I can not see the separation of romantic love from sexuality. They seem to be synonyms. Even if you say that sexuality is intercourse, and romantic love is petting and kissing, I still consider petting and kissing as sex. Not all kissing is sex, of course. Kissing your father and mother or siblings and friends is not sex when simply an act of affection. So if these lovers do not engage in what I call sex, then they are platonic lovers.

I certainly sympathize with them if they are being ostracized and persecuted, but I am more puzzled by those who are persecuting them.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Thank you for trying to help me understand, but I still don't understand. I can not see the separation of romantic love from sexuality. They seem to be synonyms. Even if you say that sexuality is intercourse, and romantic love is petting and kissing, I still consider petting and kissing as sex. Not all kissing is sex, of course. Kissing your father and mother or siblings and friends is not sex when simply an act of affection. So if these lovers do not engage in what I call sex, then they are platonic lovers.

I certainly sympathize with them if they are being ostracized and persecuted, but I am more puzzled by those who are persecuting them.

Perhaps the best example of a romantic asexual relationship, that is more than platonic friendship, is this. Asexual couples, of the same or opposite sex, can marry and enter into a civil union (known as a civil partnership in the UK). They enter into marriage and/or civil union without any assumption of sexual activity. Yet, marriages and civil unions are romantic relationships that establish kinship. The regulations of marriage and civil partnership would apply to both sexual and asexual couples.

 

[friend of]

I may be working off of an obsolete definition of asexuality here, but which sexual needs would an asexual couple (hetero -or- homo) desire to express physically? If a same-sex couple hold romantic attraction towards one another but do not engage in physical intimacy, would they still be looking upon one another in lust? In that case, it's still a sin as Jesus says in Matthew 5:28.

If this same-sex partnership is painted as some emergent grey area between platonic and romantic love, or a combination of Pragma and Philia, and it does not desire to be expressed physically nor imaginatively by either one, then I don't really see the problem with such a partnership. But I also don't see the point in calling it a relationship in the sense of marriage or common law.

 

[AlexDTX]

Perhaps the best example of a romantic asexual relationship, that is more than platonic friendship, is this. Asexual couples, of the same or opposite sex, can marry and enter into a civil union (known as a civil partnership in the UK). They enter into marriage and/or civil union without any assumption of sexual activity. Yet, marriages and civil unions are romantic relationships that establish kinship. The regulations of marriage and civil partnership would apply to both sexual and asexual couples.

Thank you. That is much clearer. This is a problem created by the government.

In the USA the government had nothing to do with marriage before the Civil War. But there were interracial unions that the Church refused to marry, specifically whites with Indians, as well as whites with blacks. So those couples petitioned the government to grant civil unions to by pass the Church. Then the government saw this as an opportunity to gain control of the family so they convinced pastors that adding a government marriage license would make for stronger commitments in marriage. Not. That never works. All it did was increase profits for divorce lawyers.

Prior to that time it was never necessary to even have the Church involved. Biblically all that was required was that the father agreed to the union of the daughter with the man and a confession before people and God that this was a marriage union. Church buildings with ministers was a practical way to make such confessions.

With the civil government sticking its nose into the tent it was only a matter of time before they began mucking up what marriage is meant to be. For non Christians common law marriage of a couple staying together for 7 years has always, and still is, recognized as marriage. Of course that meant adult heterosexuals. No one cared what the homosexuals or lesbians did in the privacy of their homes.

Civil marriage then is about legal benefits and nothing more from the government's point of view. The homosexuals and lesbians are seeking acceptance through legal means. Of course, that will never happen on a permanent basis, only temporarily.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

I may be working off of an obsolete definition of asexuality here, but which sexual needs would an asexual couple (hetero -or- homo) desire to express physically? If a same-sex couple hold romantic attraction towards one another but do not engage in physical intimacy, would they still be looking upon one another in lust? In that case, it's still a sin as Jesus says in Matthew 5:28.

If this same-sex partnership is painted as some emergent grey area between platonic and romantic love, or a combination of Pragma and Philia, and it does not desire to be expressed physically nor imaginatively by either one, then I don't really see the problem with such a partnership. But I also don't see the point in calling it a relationship in the sense of marriage or common law.

The expressions of intimacy would be defined by the couple as is the case with romantic relationships that are also erotic or sexual. From what I have read, and I do not claim to be an expert in asexuality by any means, asexual couples kiss, hold hands, sleep together, live together, hug, and express all the same committed romantic affection as those who are sexual in their orientation.

 

[mcarmichael]

We are against marriage in general, what do you think is our opinion?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

We are against marriage in general, what do you think is our opinion?

Who is against marriage in general?

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

More on topic, OP, I think there is probably a broader problem, and that is that - in general - only a very narrow range of relationships tend to be acknowledged and celebrated in church. I'm not talking here about relationships some might consider sinful, but - for example - I've often had single people express to me their frustration that there is no end of Bible studies and whatnot on marriage, but an awful lack of similar resources on, say, friendship. And yet friendship is an extremely important dimension of life for most of us!

I'm not really sure why that is. And I'm not really sure what the big-picture answers to it might be. At a grass-roots level I've tried, at least, to broaden what's on my bookshelf and resource myself for a wider range of discussions, but I'm not sure that I've got it anywhere near right yet, either.

That is an observation that has also prompted me to consider the issue of asexual relationships among others. In one of my seminary practicums when earning my Mdiv, the prof had several devotions about marriage and married people with kids. The prof had good intentions, of course, but the prof never once had a devotion about friendships or single parents or even just single people etc.

 

[mcarmichael]

Who is against marriage in general?

The editorial we.

 

[mcarmichael]

Maybe sometimes it works, idk.

 

[SkyWriting]

Asexual relationships between two individuals of the opposite sex is perfectly fine. Asexual relationships between two individuals of the same sex is not fine.

Non-sexual relationships between
all but one other persons
is fine.

Two is bad.

 

[Raphael Jauregui]

Non-sexual relationships between
all but one other persons
is fine.

Two is bad.

Romantic relationships are not the same, however, as all other non-sexual relationships. When we refer to romantic relationships, we are talking about the same faithfulness and commitment as is expressed within marriages and/or civil partnerships where the partners are sexually active. Asexual couples marry and enter in civil partnerships the same as sexually active couples.

 

[SkyWriting]

Romantic relationships are not the same, however, as all other non-sexual relationships. When we refer to romantic relationships, we are talking about the same faithfulness and commitment as is expressed within marriages and/or civil partnerships where the partners are sexually active. Asexual couples marry and enter in civil partnerships the same as sexually active couples.

Romance is all in a persons mind, so the entire thing is between them and God.
No other persons should interfere except to protect the young from abuse by others.